













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Class *D S G 3o 

Book T 4 - _ 

t$9S 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 















































































m 




sgi 



3 



THE PEOPLE’S 


* \ 


L'rrrfrrrx 



IBLE HISTORY 



ago PREPARED IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT INVESTIGATIONS 


BY SOME OF 


'I' 


HE FOREMOST THINKERS IN EUROPE ANI) AMERICA. 


'Illustrate)* (Scrpiousln ant) iicautifulln 

AND 

ACCOMPANIED BY PORTRAITS OF THE SEVERAL AUTHORS. 


REV. 


EDITgD^BY 

geo: cAlorimer, 

V 

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 


LL. D. 


RIGHT HON. WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE, M.P. 


VOLUME 


I. 


PUBLISHED BY 

THE HENRY O. SHEPARD COMPANY, 
CHICAGO. 



























COPYRIGHT BY 

THE HENRY O. SHEPARD COMPANY, 
CHICAGO, 1895. 






THE AUTHORS—THEIR POSITIONS, 


DENOMINATIONS, AND THEMES. 


• RT. HON. WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE, Episcopalian, Ex-Premier of England, 

Haavarden Castle, Chester, England. 

GENERAL INTRODUCTION, Setting Forth the Value of Scriptural Studies to the Laity. 1-26 

REV. A. II. SAYCE, Episcopalian, Professor of Assyriology, Queen’s College, Ox¬ 
ford, England. 

BOOK I. —LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. ------ 27-66 

REV. SAMUEL IVES CURTISS, D.D., Congregation a list, Professor, Chicago Theo¬ 
logical Seminary, Chicago, Illinois. 

BOOK I. —MANUSCRIPTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. ----- 67-78 

REV. FREDERIC W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S., Episcopalian, Dean of Canterbury, 

Canterbury, England. 

BOOK II. —FROM THE CREATION TO THE DAWN OF HUMAN HISTORY. - 79-152 


REV. ELMER H. CAPEN, D.D ., Universalist, President of Tufts College, Somer¬ 
ville, Massachusetts. 

BOOK III. —FROM THE CALL OF ABRAHAM TO THE BONDAGE OF ISRAEL. 153-212 


REV. FRANK W. GUNSAULUS, D.D ., Congregation a li st, President Armour Insti¬ 
tute, Chicago, Illinois. 

BOOK IV. —FROM THE BIRTH OF MOSES TO THE BEGINNINGS OF FREEDOM. 213-278 

REV. GEORGE F. PENTECOST, D.D., Presbyterian, Pastor Marylebone Presby¬ 
terian Church, London, England. 

BOOK V. —FROM THE PATRIARCHAL TENT TO THE PRIESTLY TABERNACLE. 279-362 

REV. R. S. MacARTHUR, D.D., Baptist, Pastor Calvary Baptist Church, New 

York City, New York. 

BOOK VI. —FROM THE INVASION OF CANAAN TO THE LAST OF THE JUDGES. 363-462 

REV. MARTYN SUMMERBELL, D.D., Free Baptist, Pastor Main Street Free Bap¬ 
tist Church, Lewiston, Maine. 


BOOK VII. — FROM THE RISE OF THE MONARCHY TO ITS DECLINE. 


463-524 



tiie authors —tipp:ir positions, denominations, and themes. 


REV. FRANK M. BRISTOL, D.D., Methodist Episcopal, Pastor First Methodist 

Episcopal Church, Evanston, Illinois. 

BOOK VIII. — FROM THE DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE TO THE LAST OF THE 
KINGS. ,.. 

REV. W. T. MOORE, LL.D., Christian, Editor of “The Christian Commonwealth,” 

London, England. 

BOOK IX. —FROM THE CAPTIVITY IN BABYLON TO THE RETURN OF 
THE EXILES..-. 

REV. EDWARD EVERETT HALE, D.D., Unitarian, Pastor South Congregational 

Church, Boston, Massachusetts. 

BOOK X. —FROM THE CLOSE OF THE OLD ERA TO THE BEGINNING OF 
THE NEW. .. 

RE\ . JOSEPH AGAR BEET, D.D., Wesleyan, Professor, Wesleyan College, Rich¬ 
mond, England. 

BOOK XI. —LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. - 

REV. CASPAR RENE GREGORY, PH.D., D.TH., LL.D ., Evangelical Lutheran, 

Professor Ordinaries Honorarius of Theology, 
Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. 

BOOK XI. —MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. - - - - - 

REV. WILLIAM CLEAVER WILKINSON, D.D., Baptist, Professor, University of 

Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 

BOOK XII. —FROM THE BIRTH IN BETHLEHEM TO THE CRUCIFIXION ON 
CALVARY. - . 

REV. SAMUEL DART, D.l)., Episcopalian, Professor, Trinity College, Hartford, 

Connecticut. 

BOOK XIII. —FROM THE DESCENT FROM THE CROSS TO THE ASCENT TO 
THE THRONE... 

REV. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D., Presbyterian, Pastor St. John's Wood Presby¬ 
terian Church, London, England. 

BOOK XIV. —FROM THE OUTPOURING OF THE SPIRIT TO THE DEATH 
OF ST. PAUL.. ..... 

REV. GEORGE C. LORIMER, LL.D., Baptist, Pastor of the Temple, Boston, Mass¬ 
achusetts. 

BOOK XV. —FROM THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE TRIUMPH OF 
CHRISTIANITY.. 


525-600 


601-688 


689-742 


743-789 


790-812 


813-950 


951-992 


993-1076 


1077-1190 









PREFACE. 


rpHE PEOPLE’S BIBLE HISTORY, while planned by the editor in the interest of 
evangelical religion, was not designed to be either narrow or repressive. Truth is 
never advantaged by seeming dread of thorough investigation and reasonable freedom of 
expression. The intelligent public has a right to know what eminent scholars think on 
subjects closely interwoven with man’s spiritual welfare, and to judge for itself how far 
recent researches may or may not invalidate cherished faiths. It has not, therefore, been 
considered necessary or desirable by the editor that every representation relative to the 
human element in the sacred writings which does not commahd his own approval should 
be excluded. Certain extreme statements of a purely conjectural and speculative character 
he has prevailed on their authors to modify or eliminate; and an occasional, and as he 
trusts, involuntary, display of denominational bias he has ventured to suppress. As the 
prime purpose of this volume is to unfold the history recorded in the Bible, and not to 
discuss theories of inspiration or defend a system of theology, a wider range of opinion has 
been allowed than would have been admissible in other circumstances. But at the same 
time this generous latitude has made it apparent that there is a distinctively evangelical 
school of higher criticism — a school loyal to the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, though 
diverging somewhat from traditional estimates of their documentary sources. While the 
editor dissents from several of the positions assumed by some of his learned coadjutors, as 
being inconsistent and untenable, he is more than gratified to acknowledge their manifest 
loyalty to the Headship of Christ. Assuredly it is a great gain to the Christian world to 
see for itself that the old faith has nothing to fear from the freest thought and the most 
brilliant scholarship. 

The reader of these pages should realize that the novel views set forth by various 
erudite teachers concerning the dates and composition of the sacred books, especially of the 
Hexateuch, are not as yet finally accepted, though, of course, their advocates regard them 
as irrefutable. But these enthusiasts overlook the fact that while such critics as Dillmann 
and Delitzsch, on the one side, and Graf and Wellhausen, on the other, coincide in the 
opinion that the Hexateuch has been compiled out of documents far older than itself, they 
are not altogether agreed as to the true analysis of its component parts. The differences 
may be slight, but they are real. Dillmann’s A. is Wellhausen’s P. C.; while his B. and 
C. stand for what is usually represented by E. (Elohist) and J. (Jahvist). Wellhausen 
considers one part of the composition, that marked J., as older than Dillmann does. The 
latter, likewise, concurs in the general truthfulness of the patriarchal histories as recorded 
in Genesis, and has no sympathy with Stade who regards their heroes as primitive deities, 
nor with the former in beginning his “ History of Israel ” at the birth of Moses. Dill¬ 
mann is also impatient with some recent Assyriologists who insist on tracing the Biblical 
accounts of Creation and the Flood to Babylonian sources, rendered accessible by the 



EDITORIAL PREFACE. 


vi 

Captivity. These variations are instructive and indicate that the end is not yet. There is 
no doubt that the Hexateuch reveals distinctions in vocabulary, style, and construction, and 
that narratives apparently are duplicated and enactments repeated on its pages, some accounts 
being Jehovistic and others^ Elohistic. But then we have psalms thus differentiated by the 
Divine Name, and yet no hard unyielding theory of their origin and age has been elabo¬ 
rated from such slim materials. We may, therefore, well pause before committing ourselves 
irrevocably to all of the confident assertions of modern critics. As dealing with the 
human side of the Scriptures, with which this history has especially and almost exclusively 
to do, their suggestions and representations are not out of place, and add immeasurably to 
the interest and value of this volume; but at the same time they ought to be taken with 
caution and reserve. Even as these words are being penned, and while the brilliant 
assaults of George Adam Smith, Cheyne, and Driver, on the unity of “Isaiah,” are still fresh 
in the public mind, Principal Douglas, their peer in learning and ability, is challenging 
their conclusions in a masterful treatise, entitled “Isaiah One and His Book One.” It is 
consequently impossible at this date to anticipate the final findings of genuine and well- 
balanced criticism. That must be left to the future. Each author connected with this 
Bible History is alone responsible for the views he advocates; but whatever these personal 
teachings may be, every candid student will admit that they have not obscured the sublime 
truths, which the movements of the mighty past disclose, that God is in all history, and 
that all the ages have providentially been made tributary to his Unique manifestation in 
the Divine Christ. 

From the slow development of religion, which is perhaps the most notable feature of 
the inspired chronicle, it is evident that we cannot hope to comprehend its meaning in a 
moment or without patient application. God does not hasten: we cannot. It is also 
observable, that not only has religion been of tardy growth, it has been the product of 
various and oftentimes of indirect agencies. At the beginning God did not put cOal in the 
mine, neither did he plant the full-grown tree, but scattered living germs on the earth, 
which afterward became forests. These forests drank in the sun until they were soaked 
with flame; then they sank into the darkness to be transmuted in the laboratory of nature 
into substance for heat and light. Thus the final religion had to pass through successive 
stages. At first it was but a seed; then it took shape in antediluvian, postdiluvian, 
patriarchal, theocratical, ceremonial, and prophetical eras—more than once being submerged 
in the night of exile, oppression, and apostacy — at last to blaze forth in all the splendors 
of the Christian dispensation. No wonder, then, if the history of this sublime progress 
should reveal the touch of many hands, and the interblending of diverse materials. It 
may be compared to a mosaic in which piece to piece has been joined that a glorious 
picture of heavenly things might be produced. Though the seams and divisions of this 
picture may not be apparent to all — for the Bible is not fashioned like the Byzantine 
mosaics, where all the articulations are palpable and rough, but like those of Rome where 
all the lines are ground down until they are nearly invisible — they still exist; and when 
some master-workman shows them to us and makes clear the various fragments that enter 
into the composition of the whole, let it not be doubted that even this may be true, and 
the divine origin of the grand old book remain uninvalidated. For one controlling, guiding, 


EDITORIAL PREFACE. 


vii 

unifying mind must have been operative through all the weary ages to produce out of 
such composite elements a result so wonderfully unique, uplifting, and unfathomable as the 
Bible: and that mind in the nature of things could not have been human. 

It has been customary in volumes of this character to give an account of the four 
centuries between the last of the Hebrew prophets and the first of the Roman emperors, 
and to embrace in the narrative a description of the overthrow of Jerusalem. This 
introduction of material not contained in the Scriptures is justified as necessary to an 
understanding of the relation existing between the old economy and the new, and to the 
coherent unfolding of the divine purpose in the calling of the Gentiles. But it has always 
seemed to the editor that the reason, good and sufficient as it is, for this method, ought to 
lead the historian yet farther. Instead of arresting his work at the point of catastrophe, 
he ought to carry it onward to the period of victory. That the student may perceive how 
Christianity emerged from obscurity to the preeminence it attained under the Caesars; that 
he may see how it began to fulfill what was foretold of its career, and observe the manner 
of its emancipation from the influence of Judaism and from reliance on miracles: in a 
word, that he may be able to form some idea of its transition by which, though never of 
the earth, it came to be in many respects like the kingdoms of earth, under the dominion 
of natural law, there should be furnished, at least in outline, an account of the events which 
make the two hundred years subsequent to the Apostolic era singularly significant in the 
spiritual annals of mankind. This will explain the unusual extension of the present 
treatise beyond the ordinary limits conventionally set to Bible history. 

It is only right that the editor should refer in befitting terms to the publishers, and 
to others who have had much to do in preparing this volume for the press. All that 
money could do has cheerfully been done by Henry O. Shepard and his partners to 
render this contribution to religious literature scholarly in treatment and artistic in execu¬ 
tion. The paper, letterpress, pictures, and binding speak for themselves, and the names of 
Gladstone and Farrar, to say nothing of the others, are evidence that the text is not 
unworthy its beautiful accessories. But if the company has been generous in its use of 
money, the business manager of the book, Mr. G. L. Howe, has been equally lavish in the 
thought and labor he has spent on its production. Though the editor is the architect, in 
a very real sense the book must be regarded as Mr. Howe’s monument. He it was who 
invited the editor to elaborate the plan of the work and choose colaborers to aid in the 
execution. To him alone is due the merit of enlisting the pen of the Rt. Hon. W. E. 
Gladstone in the enterprise; and from first to last he has exercised an unsleeping oversight 
of its progress toward completion. And now that he assumes control of all agencies 
employed in its circulation, the public may receive him in confidence as a gentleman 
entitled to the highest consideration. 

No pains have been spared to render the text as accurate as possible. This has not 
been an easy task, the editor and his literary associates living remote from one another, 
some of them being beyond the sea. The greatest care has been taken to guard against 
mistakes; and if the result is in any commensurate degree satisfactory, credit is largely due 
to the very thorough proofreading done in Chicago, especially by Mr. Robert D. Watts, and 
to the final supervision of the page proofs in Boston by the Rev. Charles Follen Lee, A.M., 


EDITORIAL PREFACE. 


viii 

to whose scholarly attainments and critical taste testimony need hardly be borne. The 
exhaustive index to the entire work — which it is believed will add much to the value of 
the publication for purposes of reference — has been prepared with the utmost care by 
Walter B. Wines, A.M., LL.B., whose painstaking, conscientious labor is entitled to all 
praise. And now that this History passes from the workshop of the editor to the great 
world outside, he trusts that it may find its way into multitudes of homes, and prove a 
fresh incentive to the study of that mysterious Book, wherein the highest genius of man 
appears enkindled and inspired by the Spirit of God. 

GEORGE C. LORIMER, 

TREMONT TEMPLE, 

BOSTON, U. S. A. 


June 4 , 1895 . 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 


The banner of Christianity, 5. The struggle around the 
standard, 5. No real division among Christians as to essen¬ 
tial belief, 5. The Canon, or list of books of divine inspi¬ 
ration, 5. Death agony of Paganism, 5. Mahomet and his 
influence, 5. Gradual widening of the boundaries of the 
Church, 5. The impulse of nineteenth century civilization 
upon Christian expansion, 5. The Scriptures the universal 
authority, 5. Christianity proved to be the dominant relig¬ 
ion, 6. Wonderful accumulation of influence, 6. The 
achievements and energies of Christian civilization, 6. Chris¬ 
tian nations are the arbiters of the destinies of the world, 6. 
The Bible has held allegiance for fifteen hundred years — Its 
challenge to the powers of the world, 6. Great work of the 
British and Foreign Bible Society, 7. Multiplication of the 
Scriptures and enlargement of missionary activity contem¬ 
poraneous, 7. Contents of the sacred Books, 7. Claim to 
authority is absolute throughout, 8. Gradual formation of 
the New Testament, 8. Adaptation of the Scriptures to the 
progressive needs of mankind, 8. Majestic trilogy of the 
Bible, 8. Deals with the destinies of our race from the cradle 
to the grave, 8. Authorship of the Scriptures, 8. Position 
of Moses in history unassailable, 8. Profound influence of 
legislation of the Pentateuch, 8. Wonderful purity of Bible 
teachings, 9. Doctrine of Trinity is based on Unity, 9. 
Doctrine of New Testament an echo of the Old, 9. Koran 
only helps to illustrate authority of the Bible, 9. Bible 
demands supremacy, not precedence, and is immeasurably 
separated from all competitors, 10. Divine authority recog¬ 
nized throughout Old and New Testaments, 10. The Hebrew 
records compared with Achaic, Assyrian and Confucian 
teachings, 10, 11. The Hindoo cosmogony, 11. China 
illustrates primeval monotheism, 11. Comparison of Per¬ 
sian books with Hebrew' records, 11. The diversities and 
agreements of the Eastern books of religion, rationally 
solved by the Hebrew records, 12. Ethnological researches 
only indorse Bible truths, 12. Hebrews were the only pre¬ 
servers of records in the primitive conditions of mankind, 
12. Assyrian tablets prove truth of Bible records, 12. 
Bible the only book that provides us with a record of our 
creation, and the hope and a plan of redemption, 13. 
Difference between Scriptures and other early Eastern 
books is one of kind, and not of degree, 13. Bible in 
whatever form translated never loses its power, 14. Con¬ 
trasted with the Koran and Confucius, 14. Its sublime pre¬ 
rogative to reverse the curse of Babel, 14. Confirmations 
of Scripture through modern science and research, 14. 


Egyptian monuments prove truth of the Mosaic record, 14. 
Ethnological science demonstrates the authority of Genesis 
as a great archaic monument, 15. Holy Land researches con¬ 
firm geographical accuracy of the Pentateuch, 15. Assyrian 
tablets support Biblical narrative, 15. First chapter of 
Genesis, a great fortress of the Scriptures, 15. Doctrine of 
Creation establishes the authority of the Almighty, 16. 
Grouping of life at the Creation shows special parentage of 
man by the Most High, 17. Integrity of the description of 
the Creation defended, 17. The chronology of Scripture 
from the Creation to the Deluge, or from the Deluge to the 
Advent, an open question not material in any case, 18. 
Scientific sophistry plainly refuted, 18. This chapter estab¬ 
lishes theistic and Christian faith and the true filial relation 
of man to his Almighty Father — “The Gospel of Para¬ 
dise,” 19. Question of absolute accuracy, 19. The few inac¬ 
curacies and inconsistencies make no deduction from the 
value or efficiency of the Bible, 20. The cases of Abra¬ 
ham’s sacrifice of Isaac and the killing of Sisera by Jael con¬ 
sidered, 21. The unexplainable in the Bible should not 
affect the regard due to it by reverence and good sense, 22. 
Christian apologist need have no fear of probing to the bot¬ 
tom all objections against the divine inspiration of the 
Bible, 22. Practical topics considered, 23. Holy Scriptures 
for a hundred years beleaguered by enemies, 23. Holy 
Scriptures entitled to ever-living gratitude for the work they 
have performed and are performing in the world, 23. Its 
purifying and wholesome influence, 23. Wherever religion 
may be alive, the Bible has cei'tainly lost none of its pow r er, 
24. Larger, brighter and more disentangled revelation of the 
New Scriptures offer infinite opportunities for expanding 
the work, 24. Diffusion of the Scriptures treated of, 24. 
The Book in common circulation long before the Reforma¬ 
tion, 24. Appreciation of the teaching and feeding efficacy 
of the Bible still on the increase, 24. Is a living human 
voice with a divine purpose, 25. Christian faith and love 
due largely to the direct influence of its words upon heart 
and life, 25. The tendency to agnosticism less among the 
governing classes, who are conversant with human conduct, 
motives, and concerns, 25. Virtues urged by the New Testa¬ 
ment, 26. Beneficent attributes of the Scripture, 26. Suited 
to every condition, carry consolation for every discourage¬ 
ment, and have messages of ‘ soothing, upholding, healing, 
and uplifting,” 26. Still small voice of the Bible is heard 
under every condition, and adapted to every circumstance 
of life, 26. 


BOOK I. —LITERATURE AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

LITERATURE. 


History properly defined as the record of the past 
actions of civilized man, and the picture of the man him¬ 
self, 29. Various characteristics of the historian, 29. Truth 
in history indispensable, 30 — but mathematical exactitude 
an impossibility, 31. Value of archaeological discovery in 
corroborating Old Testament history, 31. Genesis the dawn 
of civilized life, 32. Starting-point of civilization and cul¬ 
ture w r as on the banks of the Euphrates, 32 . Semitic art 
and learning acquired from the Babylonians, 32. Junc¬ 
tion of Chaldean and Egyptian civilizations, 32. Babylonia 
the background of patriarchial and Israelitish history, 33. 
God’s call to Abraham, 33. His early environments, 34. 
Culture, morals, and religion among the Babylonians — 
genuinely pious, but enmeshed in superstitions, 34. Influ¬ 
ences upon Abraham of these early surroundings, 34. End 
of the patriarchal age — migration of Jacob and his sons to 


Egypt, 35. Natural antagonism between the Egyptians and 
their bondsmen, 35. The cuneiform tablets and their con¬ 
tribution to history, 36. Israelites carried away the “ wis¬ 
dom of the Egyptians” in knowledge of literature, 38. In 
the desert the patriarchal age disappears and Hebrew 
national history begins, 38. Evolution of the theocracy, 38. 
Conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, 39. Epoch of the 
Judges, 39. Formation of the kingdom of Israel, 39. 
Division by the revolt of the ten tribes, 40. Rise of the 
Assyrians, and overthrow of Israel — Judah retains its 
independence, 40. Unity in religion and politics centered 
at Jerusalem, 41. Birth of prophecy and its message, 42. 
Purification of Judah by exile, and supersession of Jewish 
monarchy by Jewish Church, 42. Judah restored, 43. 
Prophet succeeded by priest. Spread of Greek culture, and 
conflict between Greek polytheism and Jewish monotheism, 






X 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


43. Maccabean revolt, and its consequences, 44. Greeks 
translate the Old Testament, and call it Septuagint, 44. 
The Old Testament Canon, its meaning and limitations, 

44. Contentions of Josephus, 45. Separation of inspired 
and apocryphal works, 45, 46. Modern revision of the con¬ 
tents of the Canon, 46. 47. The three codes of the Mosaic 
dispensation, 47, 48. The Law .revealed to Ezra, 48. The 
Pentateuch the authentic record of early Hebrew times, 49. 
Further demonstration of the authenticity of Old Testament 
records by archaeological discoveries, 50. The Pentateuch 
only of the Old Testament of divine origin and the sole 
rule of faith, 52. Other books of purely historical nature, 

53. Books of Joshua, and Judges, Samuel, and Kings proven 
by archaeology to be authentic records of absolute facts, 

53, 54, 55. The books of the prophets — analysis of the con¬ 
ditions under which they were formulated, 56. Anomalies 
in the Books of Zechariah and Isaiah, 57. Books of the 
Hagiographa, 58. The Book of Proverbs, 59. The Book of 
Job and its lessons, 59. The Song of Songs a Hebrew lyric 
poem, 60. The Book of Esther, 61. The Book of Daniel a 
parable for instruction and not a historic text-book—its facts 

MANUS 

Authenticity of the Old Testament, 68. Traditional 
view and that of modern evangelical critics, 68. Faithful 
study of the origin and composition of the Bible will restore 
the Old Testament to its place of honor and confidence, 69. 
Object of the Old Testament not historical, but to set God’s 
truths before his people, 70. The Pentateuch the growth of 
many centuries, 70. Hebrew literature passed away, but the 
Old Testament survives, 71. A well ordered preparation for 
the coming of Christ, 71. Origin of the books providential, 

72. Formal acknowledgment of the authority of the Penta¬ 
teuch in time of Ezra, 72. The era of prophesy, 72a. The 
prophets preachers of righteousness, 72a. Object of the pre¬ 
dictions of Isaiah, 72b. Divine power and foreknowledge 
controlled Old Testament Scriptures, 72b. Histories and 
prophecies prepared under direct superintendence of God’s 
spirit, 72c. Divine wisdom manifested in gathering and pres¬ 
ervation of the sacred books. 72c. Testimony regarding the 
three divisions of the Old Testament, 72d. Recognized as 


contradicted by authentic history as developed by archaeo¬ 
logical discovery, 61, 62. Ezra and Nehemiah relate events 
following the return from exile — disputed chronology, 62. 
The Books of Chronicles and their origin — probably com¬ 
piled by the author of the Book of Esdras, 63. The Apocry¬ 
pha, 63. Tobit, Judith, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon possess 
little claim to historical accuracy, 63. The Wisdom of Solo¬ 
mon and Ecclesiasticus, the latter translated into Greek, 64. 
Book of Enoch an example of apocalyptic literature, 64. 
Development of the two great church parties, Pharisees 
and Sadducees, 64. Jewish Canon completes its work with 
the closing of the Old Testament Canon, 64. Three lessons 
learned from the history of Israel: 1. The indissoluble con¬ 
nection between Jewish history and the Jewish Church; 
2. How varied the literature and how long a time over 
which it extends. 3. The slow education for the great mis¬ 
sion which they were destined to fill which the history of 
Israel conveys, 65. Jewish colonies invade the shores of 
the Mediterranean, and Judaism becomes a universal reli¬ 
gion. 65. In life and death of Jesus Christ, the Old Testa¬ 
ment was summed up and fulfilled, 65, 66. 


Scripture by the Jews at the Council of Jamnia,90 A. D., 72d. 
Original languages of the Old Testament, 73. Hebrew not 
the primitive language, 73. Analysis of the characteristics 
and significance of Hebrew philology, 74. Jesus spoke in 
Aramaic, 74. Witnesses for the authenticity of the Old 
Testament, 74a. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septu¬ 
agint version both corroborate, 74a. Witness of the Talmud 
and the Targums, 75. Proof of a fixed text, 75. The Syriac 
version, 76. Testimony of Jerome, 76. Of the preservation 
of the ancient manuscripts, on stone, clay tablets, or papyrus, 
76. Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy preserved on 
stone and plaster, 76a. Use of the roll, 76a. Faithfulness of 
the Talmudic transmission of the books, 76a. Method of the 
preparation of the sacred roll, 77. Regarded as a solemn 
religious work, 77. The division of the Pentateuch, 78. 
Preservation of the Old Testament little less than mirac¬ 
ulous, 78. 


BOOK II—FROM THE CREATION TO THE DAWN OF HUMAN HISTORY. 


From creation to the dawn of history, 81. Light of mod¬ 
ern criticism on the composition, meaning and origin of the 
Scriptures, 81. The four documents of the Hexateuch, 82. 
Their distinguishing characteristics, 81. Features of the 
Priestly Code, 83. The Elohist, 83. The Yahvist, 83. The 
Redactor, 84. Careful examination a duty to the Scrip¬ 
tures, 84. The question of inspiration, 84. Testimonies 
to the grandeur and moral value of the Bible, 85. The 
first eleven chapters of Genesis, 86. Unique in scope, con¬ 
centration, choice of selection, and in conformity to the 
results of scientific inquiry, 86. Narrative of the creation 
of the world and of man, 87. Appointed function of the 
Hebrews, 87. Initial movements of time and creation, 88. 
False method of Clement and Saint Augustine in illustrating 
the Genesis, 88. The first suggestion of the Trinity, 89. 
Analysis of meaning of the opening book of the Hexateuch, 
89. The majestic story of the creation, 90. Scriptures have 
nothing to do with science, 91. Multiplied religious beliefs 
of the human family, 91. The original chaos, 92. Eduction 
of the cosmos, 93. Work of the first day, 93. The creation 
of heaven, 94. The third day — separation of sea and land, 
95. The fourth day, 95 — creation of the stars, 96. Fifth 
day — creation of the fishes and birds, 97. Sixth day — cre¬ 
ation of the animal kingdom and man. 97. Likeness and 
similitude of man to God, 98. The divinity in man recog¬ 
nized even by the heathen philosophers, 99. Man is 
endowed with dominion, 100. God pronounces his work 
good, 100. The rest of the seventh day, 101. Blessing and 
sanctification of the sabbath, 101. Contrast with the Baby¬ 
lonian cosmogonial myths, 102. Cosmogonies of the Per¬ 
sians and Hindoos, 103. Harmony between Genesis and 
physical science an impossibility,* 104. The comment of 
the eighth Psalm, 105. Second chapter — the retrospec¬ 
tive narrative, 105. The woman formed out of man, 105. 
The first man, 106. The appointing of the garden in Eden 


and Adam placed there to till it, 106. The tree of life and 
the tree of knowledge of good and evil, 107. Location of the 
garden, 107. Paradise probably somewhere in the table 
lands of Armenia, 108. The first man and the first com¬ 
mand, 109. The creation of woman, 109. The temptation 
and the fall, 110. The Scripture account largely allegorical, 

111. The holiness of childhood. Ill. Entrance of sin into 
the soul of man, 112. Power of the external force of evil, 

112. Dawn of self-will in the mind of Eve, 113. The for¬ 
bidden tree, 114. All wickedness from evil thought, 114. 
The fall, 114. The mother of mankind eats of the fruit, 115. 
The man tempted by the woman, 115. The entry of shame 
with sin into the world, 115. The alienation from God, 116. 
The summons of God and Adam’s meanness, 116. Eve’s 
excuse, 117. The curse of the serpent, 117. The first 
Messianic promise, 118. Woman’s doom of drudgery, 118. 
The punishment of man, 118. Adam and Eve are clothed 
by God, 119. Earthly immortality forfeited, 120. The 
Cherubim and their functions, 120. The first natural birth 
into the world, 121. Cain and Abel, 121. The beginning of 
worship by sacrifices, 122. Abel's offering preferred to that 
of Cain, 122. The anger and jealousy of Cain, 123. The 
firstborn man becomes the first murderer, 124. Spiritual 
lessons derived, 124. The awakening of conscience, 125. The 
curse pronounced upon Cain, 126." The sign given by 
Yahveh to Cain, 126. Cain’s wife, 127. Birth of Enoch, 

127. The first city, 127. Great cities the graves of the phy¬ 
sique of the race and also of its best morality, 127. Lamech 
the first polygamist, 128. The beginning of civilization by 
the sons of Lamech, 128. The first justifiable homicide, 

128 . Cain furnishes the first lesson of repentance, 128 . Seth 
and Enos, 129. The first organized worship, 129. The gen¬ 
erations of man from Adam to Noah through the line of Seth, 

129. Longevity of the early generations, 130. Increasing 
contraction of human life since the antediluvian epoch, 







TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


xi 


130. Enoch walks with God, 131. His translation without 
death, 131. Great age of Methuselah, 131. Noah at 500 
years the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, 131. The 
corruption of man, 132. Fallen angels corrupt the 
daughters of men, and become the fathers of the race of 
giants, 132. God punishes the fallen spirits, 132. The 
giant demons destroy each other, 132. Ancient belief in 
tribes of gigantic men, 133. Yahveh determines to blot 
out from the face of the earth the race of men and the 
animal kingdom, which shared the curse, 134. Noah set apart 
to continue the race, 134. Building of the ark and prepara¬ 
tion for the deluge, 134. Fountains of the great deep broken 
up — the ark uplifted on the waters, 135. Cessation of the 
rain and drying up of the earth, 135. The ark on the moun¬ 
tains of Ararat, 135. Moral and spiritual significance of the 
deluge, 136. It w r as a new beginning, 136. Account of the 
deluge partially hyperbolical, 137. Similarity of legends of 
the deluge among the Greeks, Indians, and Chaldees to the 
Biblical account, 138. The building of an altar and sacrifice 
by Noah, 140. God blesses the survivors of the flood, 140. 
Flesh allowed to man for food, 140. God’s promise and his 
sign, 141. The sin of Noah, 141. Intemperance introduced 


into the world, 142. Drunkenness of Noah, 142. The 
infamy of Ham, 142. Noah’s awakening and the curse pro¬ 
nounced upon Canaan, 143. Grave of the prophet Noah, 144. 
The tables of national affinity, 144. The episode of Nimrod, 
the son of Cush, 145. The founder of Babylon and Nin¬ 
eveh, and builder of the tower of Babel, 146. The building 
of Babel, 146. The dispersion by Yahveh, and the confu¬ 
sion of tongues, 147. The breaking up of the race an act of 
highest benefaction, 147. Hebrew not the primitive 
language, 148. The generations from Noah to Adam, 148. 
Comparison of the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint 
tables, 149. Hebrews from Shem to Terah had no distinct 
tradition regarding their ancestors, 149, 150. The genealogy 
of Terah, 150. First clear traces of the family of Abram, 
150. The migration of the family of Terah to Canaan, 151. 
“ Came to Haran and dwelt there,” 151. Abram receives at 
Haran the intimation that he was to go out of his country 
into an unknown land to be appointed of God, 151. Birth 
of the “ child of promise,” 152. Abram the “ father of mis¬ 
sionaries,” 152. Close of the meager record of the prehis¬ 
toric age, 152. 


BOOK III. —FROM THE CALL OF ABRAHAM TO THE BONDAGE OF ISRAEL. 


Birth and training of Abraham, 155. Migration of 
Terah his father from Ur to the plain of Haran, near Baby¬ 
lon, 155. Death of Terah, 156. Abraham’s Chaldean envi¬ 
ronments, and their influences upon his character, 156. His 
revolt at the sensual superstitions of the Chaldeans, 157. 
Chosen as God’s instrument for the great revelation, 157. 
Pilgrimage at Haran part of the divine plan. 158. Reasons 
for the stay there, 158. Laxity of domestic relations — 
Abraham to introduce monogamy as well as to found mono¬ 
theism, 159. The purification of the family relation, 159. 
Departure of Abraham for Canaan, 160. Promise of the 
Lord to Abraham, 161. Family relations — Abraham and 
Lot, 162. Lot’s cupidity leads him to "Sodom, 162. The de¬ 
struction by volcanic eruption of the cities of the plain, 164. 
The departure of Abraham and his household into Egypt, 
164. Condition of government in Egypt, 165. An alliance 
with Pharaoh, 165. The Hyksos, or Shepherd rulers, 165. 
Transfer of Sarah to the monarch’s harem, the sending of a 
plague, and the restoration of Sarah to her husband, 166. 
Lot captured by the King of Elam, 166. Lot rescued by 
Abraham — Magnanimous treatment of the captives, 166. 
Melchizedek and his mysterious personality, 168. Chedor- 
laomer, the Elamite prince, first of the great Oriental 
conquerors, 168. Marvelous indorsation of Biblical history 
deciphered from Chaldean monuments, 170. Abraham and 
Ishmael, 170. Jealousy of Sarah at the handmaid Hagar, 
171. Institution of the rite of circumcision, 172. God’s 
promise to Sarah — The birth of Isaac, 172. Casting forth 
into the wilderness of Hagar and Ishmael, 172. A striking 
lesson against polygamy, 174. The sacrifice of Isaac, 175. 
Abraham’s proof of his faith and trust in God, 175. Dean 
Stanley’s interpretation of the tragedy, 176. A prototype of 
Calvary, 176. Abraham prepares his sepulcher—Death of 
Sarah, 178. - Isaac seeks Rebekah to wife, 180. Romantic 


courtship and the return into Canaan, 182. Beauty and 
talent of Rebekah, 183. Birth of Esau and Jacob, 184: 
The sale of Esau’s birthright for a soup of lentils, 184. Esau 
is robbed of his patriarchate by the device of Rebekah, 185. 
Jacob’s flight to Padan-aram, 185. Isaac’s prophecy for 
Esau, 185. Edomites described by Josephus, 185. The two 
sons of Isaac distinct prototypes of their descendants, 186. 
Jacob’s ladder and its shining occupants, 187. He feels called 
of God, and vows himself to his service, 187. The simple 
origin of the majestic ritual of the Levitical priests, 188. 
Jacob’s meeting with Rachel, 188. His bargain with Laban, 
190. Laban’s crafty deception, 190. Another seven years’ 
service rendered to secure Rachel for his wife, 190. The 
birth of Joseph, 190. Departure from Haran for Canaan, 
192. Laban’s pursuit and reconciliation, 194. The return to 
meet Esau, 196. Wrestles with the angel, and is named 
Israel, 196. Affectionately received by Esau, 198. The out¬ 
rage of Dinah and her brothers’ revenge, 198. Death of 
Rachel and birth of Benjamin, 198. Isaac is joined to his 
fathers, 198. Joseph and his brethren, 200. Joseph is sold 
into Egypt, 200. Cast into prison, 201. Interprets Pharaoh’s 
dream, 201. Becomes Pharaoh’s chief counselor, 202. His 
achievements as a statesman, 204. Visit of Joseph’s brethren 
to Egypt, 205. Joseph’s demand for his brother Benjamin, 
206. Dramatic revelation of his personality to his brethren, 
206. The glad tidings brought to Jacob, 207. Departure 
into the land of Goshen, 207. Jacob’s visit to Pharaoh, 208. 
Increase of the Hebrew colony, 209. End of Jacob’s career, 
209. He blesses his children, 210. His Messianic piophecy 
relating to Judah, 210. Imposing obsequies of the patri¬ 
arch, 210. He is laid to rest in the tomb of Abraham and 
Isaac, 210. The passing of Joseph, 211. A new dynasty 
and the beginning of persecution, 211. Reduced to slavery, 
211. Review ot Joseph’s career as an instrument of God, 212. 


BOOK IV.—FROM THE BIRTH OF MOSES TO THE BEGINNINGS OF FREEDOM. 


Egypt the cradle of the Hebrew nation, 215. Bondage 
of the Israelites, 216. Oppressors feared the oppressed, 216. 
Review of Egypt’s wealth and proud commercial position, 
216. Its enormous achievements in architecture and con¬ 
structive art, 217. Egypt the college of nations, 217. Her 
government and religion, 217. Pharaoh’s inhuman decree, 
218. Moses, 218. Parentage of the lawgiver, 220. The 
mother’s stratagem, 220. The ark of bulrushes, 220. Dis¬ 
covered by Pharaoh’s daughter, 220. The mother becomes 
the nurse, 220. Moses is educated in the highest wisdom of 
the Egyptians, 222. The murder of an Egyptian taskmas¬ 
ter, 222. He flees to Sinai, 222. Sojourn in Midian, 223. 
His marriage, 223. The burning bush and its significance, 
223. Moses realizes his mission, 224. Sent by God into 


Egypt, 227. The token of the I AM, 228. The miracle of 
the shepherd’s staff, 229. Moses makes appeal to Pharaoh, 
230. Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, 230. The tasks of the 
Israelites increased, 232. Moses and Aaron confront Pha¬ 
raoh, 232. The triumph of Aaron’s rod, 234. The Nile 
turned to blood, 234. The plagues are brought upon 
Pharaoh, 234. Moses demands the victory for God and 
refuses compromise, 235. The slaying of the firstborn, 236. 
The proud Egyptian at last acknowledges Jehovah, 236. 
The exodus begun, 238. God's purpose in the sojourn in 
the wilderness, 239. The pillar of cloud by day and of 
flame by night to lead the wav, 239. Murmurs against 
Moses, 241. The pursuit of the Egyptians, 241. The Red 
Sea divided and Israel’s host pass safely through, 242. 







TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


xii 


Swallowing up of Pharaoh’s host, 242. The greatest 
tragedy of antiquity, 242. The song of triumph of the 
Israelites, 246. A Mosaic epic equal to Homer or Milton, 
244. The Ode, 246. In the wilderness of Shur, 247. The 
Israelites again complain, 247. First of the footsteps of 
forty years travail, 247. Purification of the bitter pool, 248. 
The lesson of the early trials of the wilderness, 248. The 
affliction of hunger, 249. Lament the fleshpots of Egypt, 
249. Jehovah’s promise to Moses, 249. The flight of quails 
and the falling of manna, 250. The smiting of the rock, 252. 
Israelites’ first battlefield, 252. Joshua’s first service, 252. 
Rout of the Amalekites, 252. Jehovah’s new name, “The 
Banner,” 254. The visit of Jethro, 254. The division of the 
people under rulers of tens, of fifties, and of hundreds, 254. 
Dean Stanley’s identification of the mount of the law, 255. 
Israel called to be a “holy nation,” 256. Descent of the 
Lord upon Mount Sinai, 257. The “ Voice of Jehovah,” 257. 
Moses receives the Ten Commandments, 257. The founda¬ 
tion both of worship and of law, 258. Analysis and sig¬ 
nificance of the Ten Words, 260, 261. The covenant to obey 
the laws, 262. Glory of God revealed to the seventy tribal 
representatives, 262. Moses’ forty days’ communion with 


God, 262. The sin of worship of the golden calf, 262. 
Punishment and repentance, 264. Goodness of God 
revealed to Moses, 264, 265. The tabernacle, 266. Aaron’s 
sons consumed by fire from the altar, 266. The blasphemer 
punished, 267. The first census of the Israelites, 267. The 
wilderness of Paran, 268. Miriam stricken with leprosy, 
269. Preparation for Canaan, 269. Caleb and Joshua sent 
out to spy out the land, 269. Fear and revolt of the 
Israelites, 270. Jehovah relents at Moses’ intercession, but 
decrees that, no man of age save Caleb and Joshua be per¬ 
mitted to enter the promised land, 270. Rebellion of 
Kerah, the Levite, 271. Terrible vengeance of the Lord, 

271. The budding of Aaron’s rod, 271. The death of Aaron, 

272. Pursued by the Edomites, 272. Attacked by the 
Canaanites, 272. Lifting up of the brazen serpent, 274. 
Defeat of the Amorites, 274. The episode of Balak and 
Balaam, 275. The sin of incontinence and its dreadful 
punishment, 275. Moses sees the end approaching, 275. 
Appoints Joshua his successor, 275. The ascent of Pisgah 
and view of the promised land, 276. Moses dies “by the 
kiss of the Lord,” and vanishes forever, 276. Summary 
analysis of his achievements, character, and greatness, 278. 


BOOK V. —FROM THE PATRIARCHAL TENT TO THE PRIESTLY TABERNACLE. 


Primitive religions — religious instinct inseparable from 
the constitution of man, 281. Religious development in the 
races flowing from the families of the three sons of Noah, 
281, 282. Division of the old world between the Shemites, 
Hamites, and Japhethites, 282. Religion of the Egyptians 
(Hamites) originally monotheism, 284. Polytheistic sys¬ 
tem developed from the sun-worship, 284. The degrading 
worship of the generative and conceptive principle in Osiris 
and Isis (known in other nations as Bel or Baal and Ashto- 
reth or Astarte), 285. Egyptian philosophical cult of gross 
materialistic pantheism, the parent of modern agnosticism 
and atheistic materialism, 285. King-worship, 286. The god 
of death — Typhon, Adar Malik, Moloch, and Siva, 286. The 
Japhethites, or Indo-Germanic people, 286. Religious ideas 
of the Aryans, 286. Aryans free from the sensual ideas of 
the Hamites, 287. Their high moral teachings, 288. The 
family genius developed in the Greeks, 288. The ideal and 
poetical the predominating feature of Aryan worship, 288. 
Religion of the Shemites, 289. Shem the father of the 
Hebrew nation, 289. Hamites materialists, Japhethites 
idealists, Shemites spiritualists, 290. Worship in the Gar¬ 
den of Eden, 290. Primitive worship after the fall—the 
earliest schism, 291. Dwindling of worship at close of 
antediluvan period, 291. Noah and Enoch, 291. The 
scattering of the peoples after Babel, 291. Survival of orig¬ 
inal worship among the Chaldees, 292. The mystery of 
Melchizedek, 293. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac a typical 
event, 293. The worship of Job. 294. Summary of doc¬ 
trines underlying primitive worship, 294. Book of Job the 
finest poem in the world, 296. The land of Uz and the age 
in which Job lived located, 297. Contemporary with Abra¬ 
ham, but poem written in Solomonic age, 297/ Analysis of 
the Book of Job, 298. The terrible temptations of Job, 
299, 300, 301. The contemporary theology, 301. Job’s false 
comforters, 302. His dilemma, 301. Job’s argument and 
faith, 304. Job holds close to the hand of chastisement, 
306. Appearance of Elihu, 307. His argument, 308. God 
speaks to Job, 309. Some lessons from the Book of Job, 
309, 310. The ti-ansition of worship from simplicity to cere¬ 
monial, 310. Moses ignorant of ceremonial worship at the 
time of the Exodus, 312. Gradual preparation of the Israel¬ 
ites in the wilderness, and unfolding of the forms of worship 
by Jehovah to Moses, 313. The thrice repeated revelation 
of the Law to Moses, 314. The Ten Words the standard of 
righteousness, 314. Symbolism of the division of the laws 
and the tablets, 315. Building of the Tabernacle, 316. 
Description of the Tabernacle, 317. The Holy of Holies, 
317. Symbolism of the Ark of the Testimony, 317, 318. 


The Holy Place, description and symbolism, 318. The 
annointing oil, 319. Lessons from the whole, 320. The 
priesthood, its history and early development, 320. Ideas 
of construction borrowed from the Egyptian training of 
Moses, 322. The consecration of Aaron and his family, 322. 
The priest the mediator, 322. The symbolical attire of the 
High Priest, 323. Ceremonial of consecration of priests, 
324, 325. First burnt offering consumed by flame from out 
the Lord, 325. Fire of the altar kindled from heaven, 325. 
Awful fate of the sons of Aaron, 326. Modern rationalism 
corresponds to their sin, 327. Fire the sign of God’s pres¬ 
ence and the symbol of his energy, 327. Lessons of 
obedience instanced by Achan, King Uzziah, Saul, and 
Ananias and Sapphira, 329, 330. The law of offerings, 
331. Symbolism of the fire offerings, 331. The sacrifice 
of Christ typified by the burnt offering, 332, 333. Meat 
offering the complement of the burnt offerins’, 336. Peace 
offering typifies communion, 337. Sin and trespass offer¬ 
ings, symbolical of repentance and atonement, 340, 341. 
The seven great poets of Israel, 342. Feasts of the Passover 
and of Unleavened Bread, 342. Offering of the First Fruits, 
Feast of the Pentecost, Feast of the Trumpets, 343. Day of 
Atonement, 344. Atonement for the High Priest, and its 
significance, 346. Ceremony of Atonement for the People, 
347. The scapegoat and its mission, 347. The whole tvpical 
of the Redemption by Christ, 348. Feast of the Taber¬ 
nacles, 349. The crowning feast of the year, 349. Method 
of the offering, 350. Present, retrospective and tvpical 
significance of this feast, 351, 352. The year of the jubilee — 
the sabbatic year, 352. Nature not the sole provider — God 
is above nature, 352. Jubilee year the completion of seven 
sabbatical year periods, 353. A lesson to modern thriftless¬ 
ness and avarice, 353. An atonement both between God 
and man, and man and man, 353. Restoration of the poor 
and unfortunate and a lesson to the rich, 354. Gospel and 
ultimate typical significance of the jubilee, 354. Constitu¬ 
tion of Hebrew society, 356. Simple theocratic socialism, 
356. The land belonged to God, the holder his tenant, 356. 
Land could not be permanently alienated, 356. Urban life 
discouraged, 357. The Levites, and their position in the 
national life, 357. Set apart for special service, they were 
given cities to dwell in, 357. Cities of refuge and the priv¬ 
ilege of sanctuary, 357, 358. Laws regarding debt and 
usury, 358. The civil laws —respecting persons and prop¬ 
erty, 359, 360. Criminal laws— a, offenses against God • b 
offenses against man, 360, 361. Judicial and constitutional 
laws, 361. Ecclesiastical and ceremonial law, 361, 362. 





TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


xiii 


BOOK VI. —FROM THE INVASION OF CANAAN TO THE LAST OF THE JUDGES. 


The conquest of Canaan, 365. The invasions of Pales¬ 
tine of ancient and modern times, 365. The invasion by 
Joshua of peculiar significance -- a fulfillment of God’s prom¬ 
ise, 366. Began by Moses at Zered, and completed by 
David at Jerusalem, 366. The overthrow of Sihon and the 
rout of the Midianites, 366. Acquisition of the country of 
Gilead, 368. Location and characteristics of the tribes of 
Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, 368. Description of the Land 
of Canaan, 370. Sketch of its original inhabitants, 371. 
Characteristics of the Phoenicians, 371, 372. Their reli¬ 
gion the parent of Grecian and Roman heathenism, 372. 
Pioneers of maritime commerce, 372. Comparison of condi¬ 
tions with the Canaanites, and the invaders under Joshua, 
373. Criticism of the work of Joshua analyzed, 374. Joshua 
himself the author, 375. Scope and style of the book, 375. 
Bears same relation to the Pentateuch as the Acts of the 
Apostles to the Gospels, 375. Comparison of the material 
conquests of Joshua to the spiritual victories of Jesus, 376. 
God’s command to Joshua, 376. A descendant of Joseph, 
and the assistant and bosom friend of Moses, 376. Stands 
on a hilltop midway between Mqses and Samuel, 377. Life 
compared with that of Jesus, 377, 378. His history and 
character — knight, warrior, and saint, 378. Crossing of the 
Jordan and capture of Jericho, 379. Rahab, an ancestress 
of Jesus, 379. Her place in history, 380. The miracle of 
the passage of the Jordan, 383. Preceded by the sacred Ark 
the Israelites passed across the bed of the stream dry-footed, 
the swollen waters arrested by the hand of God, 384. First 
celebration of the Passover in Canaan, 384. Jericho, the 
City of Palms ; its wealth and luxury, 386. The mysterious 
march of the priests bearing the Ark around the walls of 
Jericho, 387. Miraculous falling of the walls, and rout and 
slaughter of the inhabitants by the Israelites, 387. The city 
razed and the site cursed by Joshua, 388. The sin of Achan 
and its terrible punishment, 388. Capture of Ai and Bethel, 
and extermination of their inhabitants, 389. The solemn 
assembly of the people at historic Shechem, 389. The twelve 
tribes listen to the reading of the Law, and consecrate 
themselves to the service of Jehovah, 390. The strategy of 
the Gibeonites by which a treaty is secured, 391. Stand of 
the five Amorite kings, 392. Sun and moon stand still at 
the prayer of Joshua, and dreadful portents of the Most 
High assail the Amorites, 392. Utter defeat of the Canaan¬ 
ites and terrible fate of the five princes, 392. Joshua now 
attacks northern Canaan, 392. In five years seven nations 
overthrown and thirty-five kings defeated, 392-394. The 
miracle of the standing still of the sun considered, 394, 395. 
Probably a mere poetical expression, 396. Discoveries of 
science render faith in miracles easy and natural, 397, 398. 
Moral difficulties in the Book of Joshua discussed, 399. Fate 
of the Canaanites invited by their abominable crimes 
against God and nature, 400. Joshua’s vengeance less severe 
than the customs of the age warranted, 400. Not intended 
to gratify a cruel disposition, but as an execution of justice, 

400. Jewish religion never introduced barbarism, but 
wherever established softened the spirit of cruelty, 401. 
The Israelites’ swords wrought a work of mercy for all the 
countries of the earth, 401. Modern parallels, 402. An 
anger that is not sinful, 402. Sensuous and degrading rites 
of the Canaanites, 403. Physical characteristics of Palestine, 

401. Joshua, at 90, enters upon new work, 404, 405. Assem¬ 
bly of the people at Gilgal and division of the lands among 
the tribes, 405. Palestine’s “ Domesday Book,” 406, 407. 
Israel as a settled nation in a divinely appointed land, 407. 
The remnant of the Canaanites — tributary tribes, 408. The 
cunquests of the tribe of Judah — capture of Bezek, the 
resting place of the bones of the founders of the race, 408. 
The Ark stationed at Shiloh, 410. Joshua, feeling his end 
approaching, assembles the people at Shechem and causes 
them to renew their covenant with God, 410. Death of the 
great leader at 110 years, 411. Entry into a new era the 
period of the Judges, 411. Falling away of the chosen race 
— liberty degenerated into license, 412. Expansion of com¬ 
mercial relations, 413. Aggressions of the Philistines, 413. 
Disintegration among the tribes, 414. Partial lapse into 
idolatry, 414, 415. Of the Book of Judges, 415. Position 
and authority of the Judges, 416. The fifteen Judges, the 


order of their succession and duration of service, 117. Table 
of the oppressors and deliverers, 418. Othniel, of Judah, 
the first Judge, delivers Israel from the Mesopotamians, 418. 
Moabites capture Jericho and are driven out by Ehud, who 
assassinates the Moabite king, 419. Oppression of the Philis¬ 
tines and the deliverance by Shamgar, 420. Jaban, the 
Canaanite king, holds Israel in bondage for twenty years, 
420. God raises up Deborah for Israel’s deliverance, 421. 
Preparations for battle with Sisera, 422. Rout of the 
Canaanites by Deborah and Barak, 423. Sisera’s tragic 
death at the hands of Jael, 424. The “Song of Deborah,” 
424. After forty years rest Israel is scourged for its sins by 
the Midianites and Amalekites, 426. Crushed to earth Israel 
calls upon God, and Gideon is sent, 426. Gideon is divinely 
invested for his mission, 427. Hews down the altar of Baal 
and erects an altar to Jehovah, 427. Receives a sign from 
God, 428. Surprise and rout of the Midianites, 429. Pursuit 
and utter rout of the Midianites and vengeance upon their 
principal chiefs, 430. The tragedy of Abimelech, Gideon’s 
son, 431. End of the first attempt to found a monarchy in 
Israel, 432. Decrease of national spirit and faith — new 
encroachments by Moabites, Ammonites and Philistines, 

433. God raises up Jephthah, 433. Jephthah’s vow of sacri¬ 
fice after his victories, 433. His own daughter the victim 
— a tragedy unequaled by the imagination of Sophocles, 

434. “ He did with her according to his vow,” 434. First 
civil war in Israel, 436. Jephthah slaughters 42,000 of the 
tribe of Ephraim, 436. A new period of Philistine oppres¬ 
sion, 436. The judgeship of Samson, 437. His miraculous 
birth and characteristics, 437. A character without a parallel 
in Scripture, 438. His remarkable exploits of strength, 438. 
Loses his strength in the lap of sin, has his eyes put out and 
is made a slave, 440. His terrible vengeance upon his 
enemies, 440. Estimate of Samson’s character, 440, 441. 
Close of the period of the Judges, 442. The Book of Ruth, 
443. The brighter side of Hebrew life, 443. Genealogy 
of the house of David, 443. Its chronological place, 444. 
Teaches the lesson of trust in God, 445. Christ, the son 
of Ruth the Moabitess, as well as of the royal David, 445. 
Internal evidence of the truthfulness of the story, 446. 
The marriage and widowhood of Ruth and Orpah, 447. 
Their loyalty to Naomi, their mother-in-law, 447. Return of 
Orpah to Moab, Ruth remaining steadfast, 448. Ruth goes 
out to the fields to glean, 448. Boaz falls in love with the 
beautiful gleaner, 450. The childless widow prefers her 
claim upon Boaz, but a kinsman has a nearer claim, 451. 
In accordance with custom the property of Naomi’s dead 
husband is offered for sale, with Ruth as an incumbrance, 
“in order that the name of her deceased husband may 
be raised up on his inheritance,” 451. Boaz secures the 
estate, and his love, and is blessed by the people, 451. 
Ruth’s son becomes head of the tribe of Judah and pro¬ 
genitor of David, 452. Spiritual truths derived from this 
beautiful story, 452, 453. Eli and Samuel, the last of the 
Judges, 453. Reason for the inclusion of these in the 
Book of Kings, 454. Eli and Samuel of priestly descent, 

454. Eli, forty years judge, eminent for his piety, but 
neglectful of family discipline, 454. Hophni and Phinelias 
his sons, profane the tabernacle, 455. Hannah, wife of 
Elkanah, bears a son Samuel, given to her in answer 
to prayer, who is vowed to God, and at proper age intrusted 
to Eli the high priest, 455. Samuel is called of the Lord, 

455. For the sins of Eli’s sons, the Israelites are defeated 
by the Philistines, who carry off the Ark, and place it 
as a trophy in the shrine of their fish-god Dagon, 456. 
Death of Eli, 456. Overthrow of Dagon, 456. God sends a 
plague upon the Philistines who are glad to return the 
Ark, 458. Wanderings of the Ark, 458. Samuel at man¬ 
hood judges at Mizpeh, 459. The people fearing the sons of 
Samuel demand a king; Samuel protests, but the desire is 
granted, and Samuel anoints the first two kings, 459. Esti¬ 
mate of the character and influence of Samuel, 459. He 
united the tribes under his authority, and united Israel to 
Jehovah, 460. Saul is anointed Israel’s first king, 461. 
Samuel probably the first founder of great schools, 461. 
End of the period of the Judges, 461, 462. 



XIV 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


BOOK VII.—FROM THE RISE OF THE MONARCHY TO ITS DECLINE. 


The situation in Israel at the inauguration of the king¬ 
dom, 465. Prosperity acquired under Samuel, 465. Israel’s 
riches tempt the cupidity of its enemies, 466. Demand for 
a central authority of the tribes, 466. The theocracy set 
aside for a kingdom, 467. God bids Samuel to accede to the 
clamor of the people, 467. Saul recognized as the chosen 
one, 467. Dramatic induction of Saul to be prince over 
God’s inheritance, 468. Great convocation of princes and 
elders at Mizpeh, 468. The casting of lots among the tribes, 

468. Benjamin to furnish the new king, 469. Saul is 
chosen, amid much discontent, 469. Siege of Jabesh by the 
king of Ammon, 469. Barbarous terms of surrender offered, 

469. Saul roused to action awakens the people and wins a 
signal victory, 469. National convocation at Gilgal, 470. 
Saul reinvested in authority, 470. Theocratic limitations of 
the kingship, 470. Real beginning of Israel’s nationality, 

470. New aggressions by the Philistines, 471. Commercial 
prosperity and military strength of the Philistines, 471. 
Israel is harassed by the Philistian incursions, 472. Saul 
makes a stand for his country, 472. Appearance of the 
young prince Jonathan. 472. Jonathan’s bold assault and 
capture of Geba, 472. Israel summoned to rendezvous at 
Gilgal, 474. An immense host of Philistine warriors strikes 
terror into the Israelites, 474. Saul, chafing under delay, 
anticipates the sacrifice ordered by Samuel, 474. Rebuked 
by the prophet, and warned that his power shall be taken 
away, 474. Perilous situation of Saul and Jonathan with 
600 warriors against the invading host, 475. The stronghold 
at Michmash, 475. Jonathan’s daring exploit, 475. Pliilis- 
tines panic-stricken, and utterly routed, 476. Saul’s rash 
invocation imperils the life of Jonathan, 476. Saul parts 
company with the ark, but meets with signal success in mili¬ 
tary campaigns against the enemies of Israel, 476. Invasion 
and outrages by the Amalekites, 477. Samuel calls upon 
Saul to execute vengeance, 477. Amalek doomed to utter 
destruction, 477. Saul completely overthrows the Amalek¬ 
ites, and captures their king, 477. Disobeys Samuel’s com¬ 
mand and retains the plunder instead of destroying it, 478. 
God in a vision to Samuel decrees punishment against Saul, 
478. Samuel denounces Saul’s disobedience and proclaims 
his deposition from the kingdom, 478. Saul’s dramatic but 
unavailing repentance, 478. Dark change in the fortunes of 
Saul, 478. David, son of Jesse, secretly anointed by the 
Prophet Samuel, 478. David presents himself to Saul at 
Gibeah, 480. Finds favor with Saul and is established as 
court minstrel, 480. New invasion by the Philistines, 482. 
The giant Goliath taunts the Israelites, 482. The stripling 
David offers himself as Israel’s champion, 482. Armed with 
staff' and sling, and trust in God, he presents himself before 
the mighty warrior, 482. The giant is smote in the fore¬ 
head, and David cuts off his head with his own sword, 483. 
Philistines pursued by Saul with great slaughter, 483. David 
and Jonathan meet, 483. The beginning of a noble friend¬ 
ship, 483. Saul seized with the spirit of envy, 484. 
Attempts David’s life, 484. David is married to Michal, 
daughter of Saul, 484. To escape the violence of Saul, David 
takes sanctuary with Samuel, 484. Saul seeking David to 
slay him is seized with the spirit of prophecy, 484. Saul 
assails Jonathan for his friendship for David, 484. David an 
outlaw, with the king of Gath, and in the cave of Adullam, 
485. The incident of the well at Bethlehem, 485. Saul’s 
fury increases, 486. The high priest and eighty-four priests, 
having succored David are summoned to Gibeah and cruelly 
put to death by Saul’s command, 486. Abiathar only escapes 
to David bearing the sacred ephod, 486. Continued pursuit 
of David, 487. David’s magnanimity at Engedi, and Saul’s 
temporary repentance, 487. David’s generosity at Nezeb 
again softens Saul’s heart, 487. David’s last tender meeting 
with Jonathan, 487. Death of Samuel, 487. David takes 
Abigail to wife, 488. David makes terms with the king of 
Gath, but refuses to join in war against Saul, 488. Saul’s last 
battle with the Philistines, 488. Calls in vain upon God 
whom he had disobeyed, 488. The tragic end of the great 
king, and death of Jonathan on the field of defeat, 489. 
News of Saul’s death brought to David in his exile, 489. 
Slays the messenger who claims to have killed Saul, 489. 
David and his men mourn for Saul and Jonathan, 490. 
David, directed by God, goes up into Judea, and is elected 
king of the tribe of Judah at Hebron, 490. Abner proclaims 
Ishbosheth, son of Saul, king over Gilead, 490. Conflict 


\ 

between Abner and David’s captain. Joab, 491. Chivalrous 
duel between twelve men of Benjamin and twelve of David, 
in which all are slain, 491. Asahel, slain by Abner, 491. 
Abner seeks reconciliation with David, and is treacherously 
murdered by Joab, 491. Ishbosheth is slain by two Gib- 
eonites, who carry his head to David, 492. Are promptly 
executed by the king, 492. David proclaimed king of united 
Israel, amid great rejoicing, 492. David resolves to found a 
new capital, 494. Jehus is chosen for its impregnable sit¬ 
uation and is named Jerusalem, 494. Strengthens Jerusalem 
with enormous fortifications, and erects a royal palace, 495. 
David a real sovereign with a strong city and standing army, 
495. Jealous of his growing power, the whole strength of 
the Philistines camp before Jerusalem, 495. David utterly 
routs them, capturing and burning their idols, 495. A 
second effort of Philistia is defeated, its power broken, and 
its people reduced to pay tribute to David, 496. David’s 
religious spirit, 496. The ark brought to a new Tabernacle 
at Mount Moriah, 496. The tragedy of Uzziah, 497. The 
imposing procession which conveys the ark, with King 
David dancing with his harp, 497. David’s song of conse¬ 
cration. 498. Analysis of some of the Psalms of David, 498. 
Some features of David’s character, 499. The Levites 
assigned to proper duty and the dignity of worship resumed, 
499. David’s great choir of 4,000 singers, 499. Introduces 
a new military system, 500. Maintains royal state, 500. Not 
allowed, being a man of war, to build a temple for the sacred 
ark, 500. The war with Moab, and massacre of the Moab¬ 
ites, 500. Hanun, king of Ammon, having insulted David’s 
ambassadors, is defeated by Joab, 501. Ammon rallies and 
David himself defeats them and their allies with enormous 
loss, 502. Voluntary submission of the Arameans, and pos¬ 
session of Damascus, 501. Conquest of Edom by Joab, 502. 
David’s sin and shame, the seduction of Bathsheba, and 
murder of Uriah, 503, 504. Nathan’s sharp reproof and the 
king’s repentance, 504. Final subjection of the Ammonites, 
504. David’s unhappy domestic life, the consequence of 
polygamy, 505. Tamar, David’s daughter, dishonored by 
her half-brother, Amnon, the prince royal, 505. Am non 
slain by Tamar’s brother, Absalom, 505. Absalom cultivates 
popularity with the tribe of Judah; revolts, 506. David 
flees to Gilead, 508. Absalom attacks the king’s followers 
and is defeated, 508. His tragic fate, 508. David’s touching 
lament for Absalom, 508. David again elected king by a 
convocation at Gilgal, 508. Jealous of Judah, the ten tribes 
revolt, but are appeased through fear of Joab, 510. In 
David’s last days his son, Adonijah, seeks the throne, but is 
balked by the proclamation of Solomon, son of Bathsheba, 
as king, 510. David’s death and burial, 511. His career 
and character, 512. Childhood and youth of Solomon, 513. 
He is anointed king by order of David, 513. Received from 
David the plans and treasure for building of the Temple, 
514. The festival of accession at Gibeon, 514. Solomon 
gives proof of his wisdom, 514. Treachery of Adonijah, Joab, 
and Abiathar, 514. Adonijah executed, Abiathar exiled, 
and the slayer of Absalom slain at the horns of the altar, 
514. Solomon extends foreign alliances, and espouses the 
daughter of Pharaoh, 516. Makes a friend of Hiram of 
Tyre, and opens up an important Phoenician trade, 516. 
Israel at the zenith of its glory, 516. Benaiah his com¬ 
mander-in-chief, and Zadok, high priest, 516. Solomon’s 
pomp and circumstance, 517. His contributions to music, 
art, and literature, 517. Extends the trade of Israel to all 
nations, 517. Erects cities and fortified places, and builds 
himself a new palace, 518. His great work, the building of 
the Temple on Mount Moriah, 518. Seven years and six 
months in building, yet no sound of any tool heard in the 
house, 519. Surpassing splendor of the Temple — descrip¬ 
tion of its interior, 519. Consecration of the new Temple by 
Solomon, 520. As in the wilderness fire from heaven con¬ 
sumed the burnt offering, and the Shekinah lighted the 
Holy of Holies, 520. The visit of the Queen of Sheba, 520. 
Darker side of Solomon’s magnificence, 522. Introduces 
enervating luxuries into the nation, 522. His scandalous 
seraglio, 522. The faces of the poor ground with taxation 
to maintain his luxuries and his enterprises, 522. Warned 
in a dream that his kingdom shall be divided on account of 
his apostasy, 523. Melancholy close of a brilliant career, 
524. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


xv 


BOOK VIII. —FROM THE DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE TO THE LAST OF THE KINGS. 


Decline and fall of the Jewish empire, 527. Description 
of Israel at the summit of its prosperity, 527. Decay of the 
Jews paralleled by the history of Babylon, Athens,and Rome, 
528. Discontent and rebellion evoked by the apostacv of 
Solomon and the burdens of labor and taxation imposed 
upon the people, 528. God, through Ahijah, indicates to 
Jeroboam the fate of the kingdom and his own destiny, 528. 
Solomon seeks to slay Jeroboam, but the latter escapes to 
Egypt, 530. Rehoboam ascends the throne of his father, 
Solomon, 530. Jeroboam hastens from Egypt and as cham¬ 
pion of Israel demands relief from the oppression of the 
house of David, 530. Rehoboam threatens the people with 
new burdens, 530. The ten tribes revolt and elect Jeroboam 
king, Judah and Benjamin remaining faithful to the house 
of David,.530. Rehoboam levies an immense army to put 
down the rebellion, but is ordered by God through the 
prophet Shemaiah to disperse- it, as the partition was of 
God, 532. Jeroboam fearing that worship at the Temple 
might draw the people back to Judah, inaugurates a new 
worship, combining Judaism with idolatry, 532. Jero¬ 
boam’s sin lay in the representation of God by an image, 
533. Bull-worship drove back many priests who had fol¬ 
lowed Jeroboam and brought upon him the displeasure of 
God, 533. Jeroboam’s arm withered at the altar of Bethel, 
533. His child Abijah falling sick, he sends his wife in dis¬ 
guise to the prophet Ahijah; he warns her that Abijah will 
die and that the curse of God is upon the house of Jeroboam, 
533. Annihilation of the ten tribes is foretold, 533. Judah, 
by tolerating idolatry is led into the most debasing immoral- 
ality, 534. Shishak, king of Egypt, defeats Rehoboam, cap¬ 
tures Jerusalem and plunders the kingdom, 544. Shisbak’s 
loot of the Temple and his enormous plunder, 535. Abijah, 
son of Rehoboam, directs an army against Jeroboam, who 
has twice the number of soldiers, 535. The Israelites 
defeated with terrible loss, 535. Abijah succeeded by Asa 
who persecutes idolaters and restores religion and patriot¬ 
ism, 536. Judah assailed by Zerah the Ethiopian, with a 
great army, 538. Asa, in the name of the Lord, wins a glo¬ 
rious victory and great spoil, 538. Asa is approved by God 
through his prophet, Azariah, 538. Slaughter of the In.use 
of Jeroboam and usurpation of Israel’s throne by Baasha, 

538. Baasha defeated by Asa, 539. Death of Asa and suc¬ 
cession of Jehoshaphat, 539. New king continues the work of 
progress and reform, 539. I naugu rates a system of education, 

539. A true renaissance of Judah, 539. Israel and Judah 
become reconciled, 540. Jehoshaphat visits Ahab in Samaria, 

540. The allied princes besiege Mesha, king of Moab, in his 
capital, 540. Defeated, Mesha offers up as a burnt offering 
his own son on the walls of Kir Nasareth, and the attempt 
to subdue him is abandoned in horror, 540. This event of 
Biblical history authenticated after 2800 years by the dis¬ 
closures of the Moabite stone discovered in 1868, 540. 
Judah invaded by an allied army of Moabites, Edomites 
and Ammonites, 542. Signal interposition of the power of 
Jehovah, 542. Judah advances with a chorus of singers 
instead of an army, and the allies set against each other 
destroy one another utterly, 543 Israel after the death of 
Jeroboam, 543. A succession of assassinations and usurpa¬ 
tions, 543. Parallel of Roman history from Caligula to Per- 
tinax, 544. The epoch of Ahab and Jezebel, 544. Elijah 
appears; his characteristics and his mission, 546. Israel 
visited with drought, famine and death, 547. Elijah fed by 
the ravens — the widow’s miraculous cruse of oil and barrel of 
meal, 547. He challenges the priests of Baal, 547. The test 
on Carmel of the call for fire — the idolaters confounded, the 
prophet of God triumphant, 548. The rain descends in 
answer to the prayer of the prophet, 549. Elijah is pursued 
by Jezebel to kill him, 549. Elijah on Mount Horeb, 550. He 
meets with Elisha, 550. The spoliation and assassination of 
Naboth, 552. Dogs lick up the blood of Ahab, 552. The 
succession of Aliaziah and his short reign, 552. Soldiers sent 
by Ahaziah to imprison the prophet are consumed by fire 
from heaven, 552. Jehoram succeeds to the throne, 552. 
Elijah places his mantle upon the shoulders of Elisha, 553. 
The translation of Elijah to heaven, 553. Reign of Jehoram 
and its terrible famine, 554. Elisha recognized as Elijah’s 
successor, 555. He performs miracles in raising the dead to 
life, multiplying food and healing leprosy,_ 555. Elisha’s 
remarkable prophesies, 556. Jehoram assassinated by Jehu, 
and the body of Jezebel cast forth to the dogs. Family of 
Ahab exterminated, 556. Massacre of the Baal worshipers, 
557. Restoration of Jeroboam’s calf-worship, 557. Jehoash, 


under Elisha’s guidance defeats the Syrians, 558. Challenged 
by Amaziah, king of Judah, Israel for the first time over¬ 
came the Judeans and plundered the Temple, 558. Death of 
Elisha and miracle of resurrection of the dead in his tomb, 
558. Development of prophetism, 559. Sketch of the work 
and characteristics of the prophets from Eldad and Medad, 
in the time of Moses, down to Daniel, 560-562. The minor 
prophets, 563. Joel, the literary prophet, 563. Amos 
declaims against luxury and vice in high places, 564. Hosea, 
practical, sad and elegiac, declaims against idolatry, and 
prophesies the Captivity, and also the return from captivity, 
565. Micah definitely a Messianic prophet; he prophesies 
the day of universal peace, 565. Nahum prophesies of the 
fall of Nineveh, 565. The eloquence of Habakkuk, 566. 
The major prophets — Isaiah, biographer, prophet, histo¬ 
rian and poet, 367. He is distinctly a Messianic prophet, of 
whose prophecies Jesus was the fulfillment, 567. Jeremiah 
the coadjutor of Josiah in uprooting idolatry, 568. Perse¬ 
cuted by the usurper Jehoiakim, 568. Jeremiah’s tragic 
messages of warning—foretells the Babylonian Captivity, 
570. The only one of the prophets who lived to see the 
siege and downfall of the holy city and the subjugation of 
Judea by the Chaldean armies, 570. Respected by Nebu¬ 
chadnezzar, he follows the Jews into Egypt where he suffers 
martyrdom, 571. His bones honored by Alexander the 
Great, 571. Ezekiel, the prophet of captivity, 571. His 
book a light to the people in exile, 572. Illumined by the 
joyous hope of the Messiah to come, 572. The decline 
and captivity of Israel, 572. Jehoash succeeded by Jero¬ 
boam II., who for forty-one years revived something of 
the ancient glories of Israel, 573. Zachariah assassinated 
in turn by Shallum, and the latter a month later dis¬ 
patched by Menahem. Pekahiah, his successor, killed by 
Pekah, when by another murder Hoshea ascends the 
throne, 573. Rise and development of the mighty Assyrian 
monarchy, 573, 574. Tiglath-Pileser lays the kings of Israel 
under tribute, 574. Hoshea with the aid of the king of 
Egypt seeks to withstand Shalmanezer, but is led into cap¬ 
tivity with his people, and put to death, 576. The ten tribes 
of Israel disappear from history and from the knowledge of 
men, 577. The fate- of Judah—Jehoshaphat succeeded by 
Joram, who marries Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jeze¬ 
bel, 578. Edomites throw off the Jewish yoke, 580. Joram 
warned by Elijah refuses to hear the voice of God — lam¬ 
entable end of his house, 580. Ahaziah is slain in battle, 
and Athaliah by the murder of relatives seizes power, 580. 
Jehoash, hid in the temple, escapes Athaliah, and is pro¬ 
claimed king — Athaliah put to death, 580. Begins as a 
reformer, but lapses into idolatry — son of Jehoiada, his 
benefactor, stoned to death by his orders, 580. The ven¬ 
geance of Jehovah —Jerusalem sacked by the Assyrians and 
the king slain by his servants, 580. Amaziah seeks favor of 
the prophets and overcomes the Edomites, but is himself 
ovei’come by their idolatrous practices, 581. His challenge 
to Jehoash, 581. Amaziah is overthrown and Jerusalem 
pillaged by the Israelites, 582. Assassination of Amaziah 
and succession of Uzziah, 582. Uzziah’s brilliant reign and 
his achievements, 583. The inventor of siege engines and 
machines for hurling weights at an enemy, 583. In the 
pride of success he invades the sanctuary and is smitten 
with leprosy, 584. Jotham’s wise and successful reign, 584. 
Ahaz forms alliance with Tiglath-Pileser and breaks the 
power of Israel, 584. Judah under the Assyrian yoke, and 
the Temple polluted by idolatry, 584. Hezekiah succeeds 
and restores the true worship. He attempts to throw off the 
Assyrian yoke, 585. The Assyrian hosts at the gates of Jeru¬ 
salem, by the prayer of Isaiah are smitten with a destructive 
simoon, in which 185,000 perish, 586. Death of Sennach¬ 
erib, 589. Manasseh succeeds Hezekiah, reestablishes 
idolatry, and persecutes the prophets, 590. Led captive in 
chains to Babylon, he repents and is restored by God to his 
kingdom, 591. After Amnon’s two years of reign Josiah 
succeeds, 591. At twelve lie enters upon warfare against 
idolatry, 591. Jehovah-worship is restored and the Temple 
rehabilitated, 592. Discovery of the Pentateuch in a dust- 
heap, 592. The pi'omises of God interpreted by Huldah, 
the prophetess, 593. Josiah and his people renew the 
covenant with God, and idolatry is utterly banished, 593. 
A grand restoration of the old religion in the Temple. 593. 
Josiah attacks the Egyptian hosts of Pharaoh-Necho, at 
Megiddo, and is defeated and slain, 594. Lamentation of 
the people for the fall of Josiah, 594,595. Egypt’s domina- 



XVI 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


tion in Judah — Jehoahaz carried in chains to Egypt, and 
Jehoiakim placed on the throne, the vassal of Pharaoh - 
Necho, 595. Jeremiah’s prophecies of the evil to come, 595. 
The Chaldeans take the place of the Egyptians as con¬ 
querors, 595. Nebuchadnezzar enters Jerusalem, places 
Jehoiakim in chains and plunders the Temple, 597. Relent¬ 
ing Jehoiakim is restored, but again revolts, is defeated and 
slain, his body cast into a sewer, 597. Jehoiakim is suc¬ 


ceeded by Zedekiah. Rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar, 
Jerusalem is again captured, the king’s sons slain, his eyes 
put out, the city given up to pillage, 598. Destruction of the 
Temple, and deportation of the better classes of the Jews to 
Babylon as slaves, 598. The remnant of the Jews go down 
into Egypt, where at last they cruelly stone Jeremiah the 
faithful prophet to death, 599, and where they perish in 
famine, pestilence, and war, 600. 


BOOK IX. —FROM THE CAPTIVITY IN BABYLON TO THE RETURN OF THE EXILES. 


No history created without an overruling plan, 603. 
The stream of Jewish history as modified by its various 
tributaries, 604. Influence of 200 years of Babylonian asso¬ 
ciation, 604. The fall of Nineveh and the destruction of 
Assyrian power, 6U6. The splendors of the ancient city, 607. 
Power of the Egyptians broken by the Babylonians under 
Nebuchadnezzar, 608. The establishment of the new Chal¬ 
dean empire, 609. Babylon the capital — Tower of Babel 
built there in the reign of Nimrod, 609. Social, scientific, 
and educational progress in Babylon at the time of the Cap¬ 
tivity, 609. All prophecies fulfilled by the destruction of 
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 610. Three distinct install¬ 
ments of captives, 612. Conflict of dates in different books 
of Bible explained by different mode of reckoning time in 
Judea and in Babylonia, 613. Number of Jewish captives 
probably 50,000 or 60,000, 614. Massacre of high Jewish 
officials on the road to Babylon, 614. Punishment for sins 
the immediate object of the Captivity, but reformation and 
restoration the ultimate object, 616. The condition of the 
Jews due to their violation of their obligations under the 
covenant with God, 618. Persistent obstinacy of Jewish 
rebellion against God, 619. Jeremiah’s remarkable letter to 
the first detachment of the captives in Babylon, 619. Cap¬ 
tives treated with leniency and consideration, 620. Different 
settlements of the Jews in Babylonia, 620. Their religious 
life in captivity, 620. Influence of the prophets after the 
Exile, 621. Ezekiel’s hopeful prophecies of the restoration, 
622. His picture of the coming temple, 624. He alters the 
legislation of the Levitical priestly code, 624. Other prophets 
of exile, 624, 625. Babylonian rulers, laws and customs, 625. 
Nebuchadnezzar their leading spirit, 626. His characteris¬ 
tics — Religiousness, 626. Superstition, 627. Courage, 
sagacity and energy, 627. The scourge of God on the wicked 
nations of the East, 628. Proud, boastful and arrogant, 628. 
Evil-Merodach, his son and successor, sets at liberty and 
treats with kindness the captive king Jehoiachin, 630. 
Murdered in four years Laborosoarchod succeeds, to be 
removed in a few months for Nabonidus, 630. Belshazzar’s 
identity revealed by ancient inscription to be the son of 
Nabonidus, and probably acting at the time of the tragedy 
described by Daniel as governor of Babylon, 631. This 
proof corroborates Daniel and is practically conclusive, 
632. Babylonians probably benefited more educationally 
from the contact than the Jews, 634. The culture of the 
former also impressed upon the latter, 634. Dreams and 
visions and their influence and misuse, 635. Daniel — his 
services to the Jews and his Book, 636. The Book of Daniel 
examined — Its trustworthiness unimpeachable, 638. Object 
of Daniel’s revelations touching Nebuchadnezzar, 638. The 
interpretation of the king’s dream, 639, 640. The effect — 
Daniel is honored and enabled to advance the interests of 
his people, 641. The predictions of Daniel are actually 
fulfilled, 641. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego the Prot¬ 
estants of the Babylonian Captivity, 642. The golden image 
of Nebuchadnezzar, 645. The three Hebrews refuse to wor¬ 
ship the idol, 645. The furnace seven times heated, they are 


cast therein, 645. They walk unharmed amid the flames 
supported by a fourth, an angel of the Lord, 645. Nebu¬ 
chadnezzar acknowledges the supremacy of the Hebrew’s 
God, 646. The lesson of his miraculous deliverance, 646. 
The glories of Babylon, 646. The philosophy of dreams, 

647. Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream interpreted by Daniel, 

648. The fulfillment — The proud king imagines himself an 
ox, and eats grass, 649. Nebuchadnezzar’s recovery from his 
infliction and acknowledgment of the Supreme God, 649. 
Death of the Babylonian monarch, 649. War and refine¬ 
ment ai-e not helpmeets, 650. Cause of the fall of empires, 
650. Nebuchadnezzar’s encouragement of culture paves the 
way for the fall of his empire under Nabonidus, 651. Jere¬ 
miah pronounces God’s curse against Babylon, 652. The 
scourge of Babylon comes from Persia, 653. The rise of 
Cyrus, king of Persia, 653. Fall of Babylon and completion 
of the prophecies of Isaiah, 653. The Feast of Belshazzar 
as described by Daniel corroborated by Herodotus, 654. The 
handwriting on the wall, 655. Tragic end of the Chaldean 
dynasty, 655. Literal fulfillment of the prophecies of Jere¬ 
miah and Isaiah, 656. Significance of the fall and obliteration 
of Babylon, 658. The identity of Darius the Mede, men¬ 
tioned by Daniel, discussed, 659. Believed to be Cyaxeres, 
king of Media, and father-in-law of Cyrus, 660. The career 
and history of Daniel, 661. The incident of the lion’s den 
— A triumph of faith, 662. Characteristics of Daniel, 663. 
The prophecies of Daniel, 663. The dominancy of Cyrus 
the Persian, 664. Pre-indicated by Isaiah, 664. Character¬ 
istics of Cyrus, 664. He grants special privileges to the 
Jews, 666. The return from captivity, 667. Cyrus restores 
the sacred vessels, 667. He stipulates that the Temple shall 
be rebuilt, 668. Foundation of the new temple laid, 669. 
Refuse the help of the Samaritans, who cause the work to 
be delayed, 669. Urged by Haggai and Zechariah, the work 
is resumed and completed 516 B. C., 669. Dedication of the 
Temple, 670. Chronology of the Book of Ezra, 670. The 
story of Esther, 672. The dark hour before the dawn, 673. 
Artaxerxes’ liberal treatment of Jews, 674. Ezra with a 
liberal supply of wealth sets out for Jerusalem, 674. Gath¬ 
ering of the Jews at Jerusalem, 675. Strange wives are put 
away, 675. Artaxerxes sends Nehemiah to Jerusalem as 
governor, 676. Obstacles successfully surmounted, 676. The 
rebuilding of the wall completed, 677. Nehemiah abolishes 
usury and introduces civil reforms, 678. Before Ezra the 
priest the people make a new covenant with the Lord, 678. 
Solemn dedication of the wall, 679. The renaissance in 
Judea — The new Jew, 679. Features of the reorganized 
system, 680. Theocratic supremacy restored, 680. Subordi¬ 
nation of the Levites, 680. The new order of scribes, and 
its origin, 681. The Old Testament Canon formulated, 682. 
The Samaritans build a temple and set up a rival priesthood 
upon Mount Gerizim. 683. Recapitulatory survey, 684. 
Lessons of the Captivity, 684. Improved condition of the 
Jews after the return, 685. Religious gains from the Captiv¬ 
ity, 686. Theocratic rule reestablished, 687. Prophecy gives 
place to absolute reign of the written law, 688. 


BOOK X. —FROM THE CLOSE OF THE OLD ERA TO THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW. 


The books called Apocrypha, 691. Israel became the 
point of union of all races, 691. Mixture of the Jew with 
the outside world, 691. A century of importance in reli¬ 
gious development, 692. Ezra, Confucius, Zoroaster, and 
Socrates were contemporary, 692. Socrates and Plato 
“Christians before Christ,” 692. The new life of Jerusalem 
after the rebuilding of the city, 693. Real character of the 


Apocrypha, 694. Light thrown on history and upon other¬ 
wise obscure conditions by these books, 695. Jesus and his 
apostles acquainted with the Apocrypha, 695. Apocryphal 
symbols of value to students of ' prophecy, 695. Links 
between Hebrew literature and the religious teaching of the 
Gospels and Epistles, 695. The two Books of Esdras, 696. 
Book of Tobit a moral and instructive treatise, 696. Book 







TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


XVI l 


of Judith, the “ first unquestionable example of a religious 
romance,” 698. Addition to the Book of Esther, a vindica¬ 
tion of the character of Esther, showing her motive of will¬ 
ingness to become the consort of a heathen prince, 698. The 
Wisdom of Solomon, one of the most valuable of apocry¬ 
phal writings, 698. Dean Stanley’s estimate of the Wisdom, 
699. Ecclesiasticus, its origin, authorship and intention. 700. 
Largest book by a single author in the Bible, 700. Illus¬ 
trates the contact between the two great civilizations of the 
ancient world, 700. The “ Hymn of the Forefathers,” 701. 
Book of Baruch, a book of prayer and praise suited to the 
needs of the time for which it was written, 701. Additions 
to the Book of Daniel, authors unknown, 701. “Song of 
the Three Hebrew Children,” one of the most beautiful of 
ancient hymns, 702. Prayer of Manasses, 702. First Book 
of Maccabees valuable for its interesting and reliable contri¬ 
bution to authentic history, 702. Second Book of Maccabees, 
is sole account of the years from 180 to 175 B. C., and gives 
more exact account of events from 176 to 166 B. C. than 
First Book, 702. The so-called spurious Scriptures—“ mainly 
pious frauds,” 703. The “silent centuries,” 704. From 
Nehemiah to Alexander the Great, 704. Office of high 
priest degraded, 704. Integrity of the Jewish religion kept 
alive by simple and devout people, 704. The origination of 
the Synagogue and its advantages, 705. Diffusion of copies 
of the sacred writings, 705. Affinities of belief between 
Persian and Jew, 705. The appearance of Alexander the 
Great, and conquest of the Persians, 706. Jews promptly 
submit to his rule, 706. The infusion of Greek ideas a 
calamity to the Jews, 708. Rise of schools of religious 
thought, 708. The “Pharisees,” representatives of the 
puritanism of Ezra, and their characteristics, 708. Rigid 
upholders of the Law, 708. The “ Sadducees,” representing 
wealth, culture, aristocratic connections, and liberalism, 709. 
The high priest who condemned Jesus a Sadducee, 710. The 
“ Essenes,” a later development of the Nazarite school, 710. 
Monks, socialists, philanthropists, and vegetarians, 710, 711. 
Were sincere seekers after the higher life, 712. The Syrian 
dynasty, 712. Demoralizing tendency of Greek rule, 713. 
Jewish modesty shocked by the establishment of Greek 
sports at the gates of David, 713. The office of high priest 
made a subject of bargain and sale, 714. Antiochus attacks 
and captures Jerusalem without resistance, pillages and pro¬ 
fanes the Temple, cruelly massacres 40,000 people and carries 
away many into slavery, 714. Four years later he sends 
Apollonius" on a similar mission, 714. Inhuman order is 
mercilessly executed, 714. Terrible persecution of the Jews, 
715. Martyrdom of Eleazar, 715. The noble defiance of 
the aged priest Mattathias, 716. Commanded to sacrifice to 
heathen gods he slays the king’s commissioner and pulls 
down the altar of idolatry, 717. Massacre of Jews in the 
mountains, 717. Death of Mattathias, 717. Judas Macca- 
bteus, the lion-hearted leader, 718. Routs Syrians and 
Samaritans and slays the cruel Apollonius, 718. Over¬ 
throws Seron and his hosts on the spot where Joshua over¬ 


came the Canaanite kings, 719. Antiochus sends three 
generals with a great army, but the Maecabean band over¬ 
throws the host with great slaughter, 719. The victors 
reenter Jerusalem, and Judas is again victorious over a third 
army, 719. Solemn restoration of service in the Temple, 719. 
Judas routs and punishes the marauding nomadic tribes and 
the Ammonites, and returns to Jerusalem in triumph, 72U. 
Lysias directs an immense army against the Jews, and Judas 
is compelled to retire to the city, where a peace is effected, 
720. Treachery of Alcimus, and defeat and death of the 
Syrian general, 720. The gallant Maccabee at last over¬ 
whelmed by numbers and slain, 722. Jonathan the Wary 
succeeds Judas, 723. Avenges the murder of his brother, 
723. Jonathan makes treaty with Alexander of Syria and 
becomes high priest, general, and statesman at Jerusalem, 
723. Is finally captured by treachery and put to death by a 
rival of Alexander, 724. The achievements and wise rule 
of Simon Maccabteus, 724. Treaty with Rome confirmed, 
725. Sad end of the wise ruler by assassination, 725. The 
Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Scriptures, 725, 726. 
Book of Enoch, and its conception of the Messianic coming, 
727-730. Last years of Jewish independence, 731. Simon’s 
son, John Hyrcanus, succeeds to the high priesthood, 731. 
Makes a friendly agreement with Antiochus Sidetes, and 
Judea becomes prosperous, 731. Hyrcanus destroys the 
Samaritan temple at Gerizim and the Greek city of Samaria, 
and forces acknowledgment of orthodox religion, 731. Sub¬ 
jugates the Edomites and forces the adoption of the Jewish 
religion, 731. Dies in 106 B. C., the last great ruler of his 
people, 732. An era of succeeding feuds and dissensions 
between Pharisees and Sadducees from 106 to 63 B. C., when 
Pompey captures Jerusalem and installs Hyrcanus as high 
priest, 732, 733. The brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus 
appear against each other for Pompey’s favor, 734. Com¬ 
manded to keep the peace while Pompey is absent on an 
expedition, Aristobulus becomes rebellious, and the Holy 
City is again besieged, 734. Pompey enters the Holy of 
Holies, 734. Aristobulus carried to Rome to grace 
Pompey’s triumph, while Hyrcanus is installed in the priest¬ 
hood, 735. Roman contemporaries of the Jewish captives— 
Virgil and Horace, 735. Genesis of Herod the Great, 736. 
Appointed King of the Jews by the Roman Senate, 737. 
With Losius, the Roman general, he storms and captures 
Jerusalem, 737. Buys off the Roman soldiers from pillage, 
737. Married to Mariamne of the house of Maccabteus, he 
slaughters the family, and finally his wife, 737. Murder of 
his sons, 738. Rebuilds the Temple in forty-six years, 739. 
Review of the condition of the Jews in the decade before 
Christ, 739. The benefits conferred on their country by the 
Maccabees, 739. Dissensions the cause of the Jewish down¬ 
fall, 739. Magnificence of Herod’s temple, 739. Material 
prosperity of the Jews regains a high point, 741. Religious 
inquiry in the three different schools at the acme of success 
in their different walks of speculation, 741. In the Fullness 
of Time “the people saw a great light,” 741. 


BOOK XI. —LITERATURE AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

LITERATURE. 


Authorship and date of the various documents, 745. 
Evidence of authenticity of the Epistles of Paul the most 
complete and convincing, 745. Classification of the Epistles 
into four groups: 1, Epistles to the Thessalonians; 2, to the 
Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians; 3, to the Ephesians, 
Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon ; 4, those to Tim¬ 
othy, and Titus, and Timothy II., 746. Testimony of Euse¬ 
bius and Origen, 186-253 A. D.; of Tertullian, of Carthage; 
of Irenreus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, 180 A. D., 746. In 
latter half of second century in Carthage, Egypt, and Gaul, 
as in Greece and Rome, there was no doubt of the genuine¬ 
ness of the Epistles ascribed to Paul, 748. Testimony of a 
letter written by Clement of Rome, to the church at Corinth, 
at close of the first century, containing indisputable ref¬ 
erence to the chief matter of the First Epistle to the Corin¬ 
thians, 748. The Epistles bear internal evidence of their 
authenticity, 748. The unanimous and early reception of 
these letters in the churches to which they were sent in the 
lifetime of Paul, 749. The Epistles to the Corinthians and 
Galatians, abounding in severest condemnation, would be 
written by no other than the apostle, much less accepted by 


these churches, without knowledge of their genuineness, 
749. Baur, the famous rationalist, and Renan, unite in 
declaring them incontestible and uncontested, 750. The 
date of the letters established by inference from their 
internal references, corroborated by the narrative of the 
Acts of the Apostles, 750, 751. Epistle to the Corinthians 
written 58 A. I)., and that to Romans in the year following, 
752. Assurance of the integrity of these Epistles places us 
by the side of the ablest of the apostles, and enables us to 
look at Christ and his Gospels from his point of view, 753. 
The two Epistles to the Thessalonians accepted as genuine 
by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenseus, 753. 
Analysis and comparison of comparative dates, 754. The 
third group, to the Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians, 
accepted without question by the early Church, 754. Analy¬ 
sis of other evidence in favor of the genuineness of these 
Epistles, and the harmony of style, make proof conclusive, 

755. The profound thought embodied in the Epistle to the 
Colossians cannot be the offspring of a forger or an imitator, 

756. Names mentioned' in the greeting to Philemon a valu¬ 
able coincidence with names mentioned in Colossians, 756. 





TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 


Enumeration of the church officer's in Ephesians a sure 
mark of an early date, monarchial episcopacy being firmly 
established in second century, 757. Accepted as genuine by 
Marcion, an enemy of the Gospel, in middle of the second 
century, 757. Comparison of events, by which date of writ¬ 
ing is fixed, 758. Mention of only two church officers, 
bishnps or elders, and deacons, indicates unmistakably a 
very early date in the pastoral epistles, 760. Other infer¬ 
ential but unmistakable evidence of the authenticity 
of the Epistles of Paul, 761, 762. The Synoptic Gospels — 
no question of genuineness, 763. As to writers, dates, and 
trustworthiness, 7<>3. The four Gospels, in Iremeus’ day, 
accepted as authentic and official records of the life and 
teaching of Christ, 763. Papias, the hearer of John and 
companion of Polycarp, quoted by Eusebius, 763. The 
account of Justin the Martyr, 764. The Synoptic Gospels 
present an identical picture of Christ, 764. The agreement 
of a company of independent witnesses, 765. Corroborative 
inference from the record of the Epistles, 766. Gospels 
must have been written in the generation which heard 
Christ, 766. The Book of Acts and the Third Gospel writ¬ 
ten by the same person, Luke, referred to by Paul in Colos- 
sians as “the beloved physician.” 767. Irenseus identifies 
Luke as a fellow-laborer of Paul, 767. Book of Acts must 
have been written at an early date, because of no mention 
of Paul’s Epistles. Important service rendered by Book of 
Acts, in affording confirmation of the Epistles, 768. Com¬ 
parison of events mentioned in the Acts, with dates fur¬ 
nished by Josephus, indicate Paul’s arrest must have been 
not later than 59 A. D. Similarly that it could not have been 
earlier than 57 A. D. Date of Paul’s imprisonment fixed in 
summer of 59 A. D., 769. His previous movements in Mace¬ 
donia, Corinth, and at Philippi accurately traced as to dates, 
769. Date of the Epistles also approximately defined, 770. 
The Fourth Gospel, the work of John, the beloved apostle, 
771. Early authorities sustain its authenticity, 771. 
Accuracy of detail reveals a trustworthy eyewitness, 771. 


Its theological teaching a connecting link between Paul’s 
doctrine of justification by faith, and the teachings of 
Christ, 772. John’s membership of the inner and more 
intimate circle of the disciples, gave him access to the infor¬ 
mation which the Fourth Gospel alone conveys, 772. The 
absence of mention of his own name, though frequently 
referred to, additional proof of John’s authorship. No 
other writer would have omitted it, 772, 773. The objection 
of the different style of the Book of Revelations consid¬ 
ered, 774. No doubt that John wrote Revelations, but 
being written in a language not his mother tongue, he may 
have had assistance. Paul used an amanuensis, 775. The 
Gospel written by John while at Ephesus, 776. Epistle to 
the Hebrews the most orderly and logical book of the New 
Testament, 777. Claimed by Eusebius to be written by 
Paul to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and carefully 
translated by Luke, but no certainty as to the author, 777, 
778. Epistle of James ascribed by Origen to James, the 
brother of the Lord. 778. Probably written from Jerusalem 
to his race, 780. Epistles of Peter and Jude — that of Peter 
testified to by Papias, and is also quoted by Iren feus, 781. 
Of value as showing that the teaching of Paul and John 
was common to other sections of the early Church, 781. 
Epistle of Jude probably written by a brother of James the 
Just, and of Christ, 782. Accepted’ by Clement, Tertullian, 
Origen, and Eusebius 783. Review of the evidence, 783, 
784. Value of our English translation of the Bible, 784. 
The numerous sources from which the translations are 
obtained, 784. The substantial agreement of the various 
versions prove their approximate accuracy, 786. The 
Revised Version the most accurate and reliable, 787. Place 
of the New Testament in Christian life, 787. It is a record 
and exposition of the supreme revelation given to men in 
Christ, 788. An essential part of God’s eternal purpose of 
salvation, 788. The casket that contains the Pearl of Great 
Price — the personal and incarnate Word, 789. 


MANUSCRIPTS. 


The materials used by Apostle Paul, 791. How his reed 
pen and his ink were made, 791. Papyrus, its material and 
characteristics, 791. The brittleness of the papyrus accounts 
for its speedy disappearance in the course of use, 791. Parch¬ 
ment was used when the necessity of transmitting the priceless 
writing to future generations began to be realized. 792. The 
first form was in rolls, hut about 300 A. D. the writings were 
put in hook form, 793. History of the oldest Biblical manu¬ 
script, 792, 793. The Codex Sinailicus and the Codex Valicanus 
probably written fn the fourth century by Eusebius by 
command of the Emperor Constantine, 793. Original manu¬ 
scripts probably written le&s than 100 years after the 
crucifixion, 793. The Codex Bezie at Cambridge, England, 
and the Codex Claromonkmus written in the sixth century, 

793. These called Uncials, because written in capital letters, 

794. Written in running hand after 1000 A. D. and called 
Minuscles, 795. Peculiarities of these early books, 795. 
Decoration by illuminated pages — some quaint allegorical 
allusions, 796. Manuscripts in different colors according to 
the person, as the speech of Mary or of an angel in blue, 
words of Jesus in crimson, and words of the devil, the 
Pharisees, and all enemies of the Church, in black, 796. How 
corrections were made, 797. Origin of the division of the 
Bible into chapters as they now are, 798. Verses more 
modern than the chapters—the work of Robert Etienne, a 
great French printer, 798. Peculiar origin of the division 
of Revelation, 798. System of arranging ‘‘The Gospel” 
and “The Epistle” for church use, 799. Translations — 


the language that Jesus spoke Aramaic, a kind of Syriac, 
800. Syriac testaments probably translated before the end 
of the first century, 800. Close connection between Italy 
and Syria, Antioch being the Roman eastern capital, 
800. The first Christian schools at Antioch, and paid much 
attention to the text of the Bible, 800. Syrian Church 
took an important part in the history of the Greek text. A 
revision of the text probably made at Anti ch about the 
middle of the second century, 801. The Coptic New Testa¬ 
ment, 801. Greek language the language of the world in 
early Christian times, 801. Translations in Egypt, Abyssinia, 
and Armenia, 802. The Latin and Gothic translations. 803. 
The Upsala manuscript, 803. The Latin translation probably 
made in Egypt within 100 years after Christ, 804. Interest¬ 
ing history of the Vulgate, 805. The value of the com¬ 
mentaries of the early Fathers, 806. Clement, Origen, Ter¬ 
tullian and Cyprian, 808. Chief witnesses for the text of 
the New Testament are the Greek manuscripts, the various 
ancient translations and the Fathers, 808. Clement of Rome 
testifies 96 A. D. Testimony of the second century, Justin 
Martyr, Iremeus, Clement of Alexandria, Barnabas, Ignatius, 
Polycarp, Papias, and Tatian, 808. Contribution to testimony 
of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, 809. Interpolations 
in the New Testament, 810. Jesus and the Adulteress, 810. 
Confession of a monk of Salonica in an old manuscript, 811. 
Curious similar inscriptions and other peculiarities of manu¬ 
scripts, 812. 


BOOK XII. —FROM THE BTRTH IN BETHLEHEM TO THE CRUCIFIXION ON CALVARY. 


The Annunciation — the birth of Jesus, 815. The mes¬ 
sage to Mary in Nazareth, 815. The announcement of the 
angel to Mary, 816. Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, 818. The 
mother of John the Baptist, 818. The salutation of Eliza¬ 
beth, 819. Joseph receives the knowledge, 820. Marriage 
of Joseph and Mary, 820. The birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, 
820. The message to the shepherds, 822. The announce¬ 
ment of peace and good will, 822. Homage of the shep¬ 
herds, 822. The visit of the wise men of the East with 


royal gifts, 824. Warned against Herod, 824. The massacre 
of the innocents, 826. Warned of God, Joseph and his 
family flee into Egypt, 827. Jesus presented at the Temple, 
827. The “Nunc Dimittis”of Simeon, and his blessing of 
the child and his parents, 828. The prophecy of Anna, 830. 
The childhood of Jesus, 830. The child Jesus, and his 
father Joseph, 831. In his Father’s house, 832. Jesus and 
his mother Mary, 833. The eighteen silent years of the 
Master, 834. Pseudo gospels of Christ’s infancy and their 






TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


xix 


absurdities, 835. The voice from the wilderness, 836. John 
the Baptist cousin of Jesus, 836. The baptisms in the River 
Jordan, 837. John baptizes Jesus, 837. Descent of the 
Holy Spirit upon Jesus, 838. The Messiah at last made 
manifest, 838. The temptation by Satan, 838, 839. Forty 
days’ fast in the wilderness, 840. ' The reality of the devil, 
841. The angels minister to Jesus, 842. The meaning and 
spiritual significance of the temptation, 843. A glimpse of 
the glory of Jesus, 844. The first two disciples, 844. The 
miracle of the marriage in Cana of Galilee, 845. “The 
beginning of his signs,” 846. The sojourn at Capernaum, 
846. Visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the Passover, 846. 
Scourging the money changers out of the Temple, 848. 
Jesus and N icodemus, 848. Teaches of the new birth, 850. 
Meeting with the woman of Samaria at Jacob’s well, 850. 
Announces himself as the Messiah, 852. Conversions in the 
valley of Sychar, 853. Restores the sick child of the gentle¬ 
man of Capernaum, 853. The fulfillment of Isaiah’s proph¬ 
ecy, 853. Is mobbed in the home of his childhood, 854. 
His mysterious power demonstrated, 854. The fishermen 
disciples, 854. On the sea of Galilee, 856. The miraculous 
draught of fishes, 856. Forsook all and followed Jesus, 856. 
The man possessed of a demon, 857. Heals the mother of 
Simon’s wife, 858. His mission of healing throughout 
Galilee, 858. The palsied man made whole, 860. The scribes 
and Pharisees offended, 860. The calling of Matthew, 862. 
The miracle of healing at the pool of Bethsaida, 863. Lawful 
to do good on the sabbath day, 864. Foretells of the resur¬ 
rection, 864. The sabbath made for man and not man for 
the sabbath, 866. The healing of the withered hand, 866. 
Jesus’ enemies “ filled with madness,” 868. The Sermon on 
the Mount, 868. The doctrines of the new dispensation are 
announced, 870. The Golden Rule, 871. Faith of the 
Roman centurion, 872. The son of the widow of Nain is 
raised from the dead, 874. The Master’s eulogy on John the 
Baptist, 874. Mary Magdalen at the feet of Jesus, 876. 
The ministering women, 877. The Pharisees denounced, 
878. The teaching by parables, 880. The parable of the 
Mustard Seed, 881. The cycle of miracles, 881. Rebukes 
the raging winds and the roaring sea, 882. The casting out 
of devils, 882. The daughter of Jairus raised from the dead, 
885. Her “ faith made her whole,” 885. The dumb man is 
made to talk, 886. Obstinate unbelief of the Jews, 880. 
Farewell tour in Middle Galilee, 886. Promises to his dis¬ 
ciples, 888. The fate of John the Baptist, 889. Christ feeds 
the multitude from five barley loaves and two fishes, 889. 
He walks upon the waters, 890. Peter’s faith ; its proof and 
its failure, 190. The work of the Christian defined, 890. 
Twelve chosen and one of them a devil, 892. The faith of 


the Canaanitish woman, 893. “He could not be hid,” 893. 
Another miraculous feeding of the people, 894. Peter is 
exalted, 896. Admonishes his followers of his coming end, 
897. The mystery of the transfiguration, 898. Out of the 
glory of the Father to the healing of a sick boy, 899. Again 
foreshadows his awful doom, 900. Teaches duty to the civil 
authorities, 900. The duty of forgiveness, 902. Jewish 
rulers seek to kill Jesus, 902. Farewell to his home in Beth¬ 
any, 903. Spurned by a Samaritan village, 903. Chooses 
seventy in addition to the seven, 903. The parable of the 
good Samaritan, 906. Jesus with Mary and Martha at 
Bethany, 908. Heals the blind on the sabbath day, 908. 
The Jews unbelieving and exasperated, 909. Denunciation 
of the Pharisees, 910. Solemn warning to the Jewish nation, 
911. The straight and narrow way pointed out, 912. The 
snares of the Pharisees, 913. Holds out hope for the publi¬ 
cans and sinners, 914. Parable of the Prodigal Son, 914. 
The Rich Man and Lazarus, 915. Called by love into Judea, 
916. “Doubting Thomas’” loyal faith, 916. Touching inter- 
view with Mary and Martha over their dead brother, 918. 
The sublime miracle—“Lazarus, come forth!” 920. The 
healing of the lepers, 920. Jesus on divorce, 922. Blesses 
the little children, 922. Jesus and the rich young man, 924. 
The parable of the Vineyard, 924. The shadow of the cross, 
924. Making the blind "to see, 925. Jesus and Zaccheus the 
tax-gatherer, 926. The parable of the Ten Pounds, 926. 
Christ again among his friends at Bethany, 928. The tri¬ 
umphal entry into Jerusalem, 929. The barren fig tree, 930. 
The last Monday in the Temple, 930. Parable of the Wicked 
Husbandman and of the Marriage of the King’s Son, 932. 
Confounds the sophistries of Pharisee and Sadducee, 933. 
Sevenfold woe denounced upon the hypocrites and formalists 
of the Jewish Church, 934. Parables of the Ten Virgins and 
of the Talents, 935. The Last Supper of the Lord, 936. 
Washes the disciples’ feet, even the feet of Judas, 936. 
Jesus’ agony in the garden of Gethsemane, 939. Judas 
betrays the Son of God with a kiss, 639. Forsaken by all, 
Jesus yields himself to his enemies, 940. Smitten by the 
servant of the High Priest, 942. Peter’s denial of his 
Master, and his remorse, 942. Reviled and spat upon, 942. 
The dreadful fate of the traitor, Judas, 942. Jesus before 
Pontius Pilate, 944. Brought before Herod, and back to 
Pilate, 944. Jews cry for the blood of Christ—“Crucify 
him! crucify him! ” Jesus is scourged and brutally maltreated 
by the mob, 946. Led away to be crucified, 946. Jesus 
bears the cross on the way to the place of skulls, 948. The 
dreadful crime consummated, 94S. Nailed to the cross 
between two thieves, scoffed at and insulted in his agony, 
950. The Atonement is completed, 950. 


BOOK XIII. —FROM THE DESCENT FROM THE CROSS TO THE ASCENT TO THE THRONE. 


The customs attending crucifixion, 953. Soldiers sent to 
despatch the sufferers, 953. The two thieves are yet alive, 
but the spirit of Jesus has departed, 953. A soldier pierces 
the side of the Holy One, 954. Joseph of Arimathea begs 
the body of the Lord and with Nicodemus gives it honorable 
sepulture in a new and as yet unused tomb, 956. The 
sepulcher sealed with a great stone, 956. The great sab¬ 
bath, sadly observed by the bereaved disciples of the 
crucified Redeemer, 956. The Pharisees seal the tomb and 
place a Roman guard upon it, 956. Motive, lest the body be 
stolen away and the disciples say he is risen from the dead, 
957. The incarnate Son in the world of the dead, 957. His 
divine presence brightened the world of waiting, 958. “He 
went and preached unto the spirits in prison ”— to the souls 
of the departed, 959. The first Easter Sunday— the resur¬ 
rection from the dead, 960. No elaborate account of the great 
event and reasons therefor, 962. The disciples unprepared 
for the great event, 962. A day of strange excitement and 
confusion, 963. The two Marys and Salome bearing spices 
to the tomb find it empty, 966. Looking into the tomb they 
find angels there, who bid them tell the disciples that their 
Lord is risen indeed, 966. Saint John and Saint Peter fly to 
the tomb and verify the news, 966. Mary Magdalen finds 
two angels at the door of the sepulcher, and Jesus appears, 
967. Saluting him, “ Rabboni,” she is warned not to touch 
him as he is not yet ascended to his Father, 967. She is 
commanded to carry the news to the disci pies,_ 967. Christ 
also meets the women who were returning to the 
sepulcher, 967. Roman sentinels, frightened away by an 


earthquake and the appearance of the angel, report the 
mystery to the governor and Jewish elders, 968. The mes¬ 
sage from the Lord to Peter a special token of forgiveness, 
968. The first Easter evening, 970. Cleopas and Luke 
walking abroad and discussing the strange event find a 
strange man walking with them in the dusk, 970. In 
answer to inquiry they tell him of the events that have just 
happened, 970. The stranger expounds the ancient Scrip¬ 
tures in promise of the Messiah, 970. Entering a house at 
Emmaus with them he blessed the bread and brake it and 
gave to them, 970. Is recognized distinctly as their Loftl 
whom they had seen murdered; when he disappears, 970. 
Also appeared to Simon, 972. While discussing the matter 
the Lord stood among them with pierced side, hands, and 
feet in token of his suffering, 972. Gives the disciples the 
apostolic commission, 972. Appears to the disciples at inter¬ 
vals during forty days, 972. Thomas the Doubter con¬ 
vinced, 972. To avoid tumult Jesus makes his appearances 
in Galilee, 972. “ They worshiped him, but some doubted,” 
974. Five hundred believers on the mountain in Galilee 
the nucleus of the Christian Church, 974. The risen Savior 
gives his little church the command to make disciples of all 
nations, 976. He assures them of his continued presence 
with them “all the days,” 977. To his particular apostles 
he is seen many times for forty days, speaking of things 
pertaining to the kingdom of God, 978. Charges them to 
await in Jerusalem after his ascension till they had received 
the Holy Ghost, 978. His wondrous converse with his 
apostles, 980. The risen Lord at the Sea of Galilee, 980. He 





XX 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


meets seven of his disciples on the shore, and feeds them 
with bread and fish, 980. Reconciliation and restoration of 
Peter, 981. Last word of the Master, “Follow thou me,” 
981. The truth of the Resurrection, its evidence and mean¬ 
ing, 982. No spectral form, neither substitution nor develop¬ 
ment, but the self-same body that had been crucified, dead 
and buried, 982. The risen Christ enters at once upon a life 
of perfect vigor, conversed, walked, and ate with men. and 
women ; reasoned and expostulated, taught, comforted and 
prophesied, 982. Proof of Christ’s resurrection receives 
eloquent testimony in the life and work of the apostles, 983. 
Deception could not so have inspired the early Christians, 
983. The risen Christ revealed also to Saint Paul, 983. The 
life of the risen Lord a lesson to be communicated to all his 


people, 984. The Resurrection as teaching immortality, 985. 
The idea of the philosophers of immortality, vague and 
shadowy: the crucified Lord in the might of his new life 
gave a new and satisfying meaning to the idea of immortal¬ 
ity, 985. Spiritual and prophetic meaning of the utterances 
of the last forty days, 986. Life and inspiration of the 
Church and its members drawn from this period, 988. The 
Ascension, 988. Blesses his disciples and is lifted up, 988. 
The message of the angels that he shall come again, 988. In 
the ascension Christ “ led captivity captive,” 989. The first 
martyr declared that he saw the Son of Man standing at the 
right band of God, 990. The glorified Christ the inspiration 
and strength of all the Christian centuries, 990. Church 
supported by the hope of that which is to come, 992. 


BOOK XIV.—FROM THE OUTPOURING OF THE SPIRIT TO THE DEATH OF ST. PAUL. 


The advent of the spirit, 995. From the Ascension of 
our Lord to the destruction of Jerusalem, 995. The decay 
of Judaism and development of the infant Church, 995. 
Acts of the Apostles solid ground for Church history, 996. 
The spirit sent from heaven, 997. Advent of the Spirit a 
new phenomenon, 998. An upward step in the evolution of 
the kingdom, 998. The same spirit that brooded over the 
face of the deep, 998. Apostles conscious of new life and 
power which they knew to be from God, 1000. Advent of 
the Spirit the birth of the Church, 1000. The first voice — 
“ They began to speak with tongues ” as the Spirit gave them 
utterance, 1000. Peter preaches the first Christian sermon, 
1001. The remission of sins and gift of the Holy Ghost, 
1001. The teaching of the apostles, 1002. Fellowship next 
to teaching, 1002. Intercourse hallowed by the breaking of 
bread, 1002. The prayers, 1002. No gorgeous ritual in the 
golden age of the Church, 1002. After the great ingathering 
at Pentecost a period of quiet growth, 1004. Conversion of 
Saint Paul, 1004. The first miracle by Peter, 1006. The work 
of Christ not physical but spiritual, 1007. Arrest of the 
two apostles, 1008. The first recorded prayer of the Chris¬ 
tian Church, 1009. The Church’s most formidable foe, 1010. 
The serpent in Paradise, 1010. The ideal church and the 
real, 1010. Ananias and Sapphira, 1011. Their punishment 
not necessarily extended to the life beyond, 1011. Jerusa¬ 
lem filled with the doctrine, 1012. The Apostles before the 
Sanhedrim, 1012. Policy of Gamaliel, 1012. The Gospel 
triumphant, 1013. Extension of the work throughout Judea 
and Samaria, 1010. Stephen the first martyr, 1014. Saul 
the fierce persecutor, 1017. The evangelist, 1017. Relations 
of the Jews and Samaritans, 1018. Daring impiety of Simon 
Magus, 1018. Works of healing by Philip, 1018. A seeker 
after truth from Ethiopia led to the light by Philip, 1020. 
Christians scattered by the martyrdom of Stephen spread 
the doctrine —The new .apostle, 1021. Journey of Saul 
of Tarsus to Damascus, 1021. Zeal of Saul a genuine zeal 
for the Lord, 1021. Saul’s fault, pride and self-assertion, 

1022. The risen Lord confronts the fiery persecutor, 1022. 
Said is humbled, 1023. Given a mission to the Gentiles, 

1023. Saul’s logical faculty not obscured by his ardor, 1023. 
Saul proclaimed a chosen vessel to carry the name of the 
Lord to the Gentiles, 1024. The old wall broken down, 

1025. To remove the wrappings of Judaism from the 
Church a difficult task, 1025. The revolution detailed by 
Saint Luke, 1026. Saint Peter’s tour through the churches, 

1026. Cure of .-Eneas and raising of Dorcas, 1026. Rest and 
prayer at Joppa, 1026. His vision and visit to Cornelius the 
Roman, 1027. The visit of the Holy Ghost, 1027. First 
baptism of Gentiles, 1028. Sunset in Jerusalem, 1028. The 
famine and relief from Antioch, 1029. Rise of Herod 
Agrippa, 1029. His influence with Caligula, 1029. Kills 
James the brother of John with a sword, 1029. Peter in 
chains, 1030. Freed by the angel of God, 1033. Antioch, 
third city of the Roman Empire, 1033. Large Jewish col¬ 
ony, 1034. Unnamed disciples speak the Word to the 
Greeks, 1034. Barnabas sent to Antioch, 1034. Saul of 
Tarsus sent for, 1035. There enters upon his lifework, 1035. 
The disciples first called Christians at Antioch, 1036. The 
first foreign mission, 1036. Barnabas and Saul set apart for 
mission work by the Holy Ghost, 1036. Solemn ordination 
as apostles — Cyprus the home of Barnabas the first field, 
1037. Conversion of Sergius Paulus, 1038. Elymas stricken 
with blindness for obstructing the work, 1038. Saul now 


called Paul, 1038. Asia Minor visited, 1038. Extent of the 
great Province of Galatea, 1038. Antioch in Pisidia the gov¬ 
erning center, 1038. Repulsed by the Jews at Antioch he 
carries the Word to the Gentiles at Lystra, 1040. Appeals 
against the worship of Jupiter, 1040. Stoned and nearly 
killed by the mob, 1041. Preaches the Gospel at Derbe, 
making many converts, and then revisits Lystra and Anti¬ 
och, 1041. The great controversy, 1041.’ Question of 
admitting the Gentiles to the church, 1041. Deputation sent 
to the church at Jerusalem, 1042. Saint Peter, directed by 
the Holy Spirit, speaks for the new apostles and their ways, 
1044. A compromise decision, 1044. Dispute between 
Peter and Paul at Antioch, 1045. The sec nd missionary 
journey, 1046. Paul and Silas invade Asia preaching the 
Word, 1047. Visits Tarsus, and at Lystra takes Timothy as 
a third coadjutor, 1047. Visit to Macedonia, 1848 Conver¬ 
sion of Lydia at Philippi, 1048. Paul and Silas in the 
dungeon, 1049. Conversion of the jailer — Luke is left at 
Philippi, 1050. After making converts is driven from Thes- 
salonica and Berea, 1050. Visit to Achaia, Athens, and 
Corinth, 1050,1051. Paul’s famous exhortation at the altar 
of Mars, 1053. Analysis of Paul’s appeal, 1054. Mocked 
by the Athenians, 1055. Dionysius a convert — The first 
bishop of the church at Athens, 1055. Arrival of Silas and 
Timothy, and the work at Corinth — The third missi 'nary 
journey, 1058. At Ephesus meets Apollos of Alexandria, a 
disciple of John the Baptist, 1058. Two years’ labor at 
Ephesus and neighborhood, 1059. Disorders in the Church 
at Corinth, 1059. Demetrius the silversmith arouses antag¬ 
onism, 1060. A tour in Macedonia and visit to Greece, in 
which Epistles to the Galatians and Romans were written, 
1062. Return to Jerusalem by land, visiting Philippi, Troas, 
Miletus, Tyre, and Ciesarea, 1062. Hardships of these 
immense journeys, and suffering by persecution, shipwreck, 
and personal abuse, 1062. The presence of the Lord, 1063. 
Determines to heal the rupture between Jerusalem and An¬ 
tioch, 1063. At Jerusalem, 1064. Assailed by the Jews and 
imprisoned, 1065. Before the Sanhedrim, 1066. Visited by 
the Lord, 1066. Conveyed to Ciesarea to avoid assassination, 
1066. Saint Paul before Felix, 1068. Arrival of Festus, 
1069. Jews demand that Paul be given up to them, 1069. 
Claims his right as a Roman citizen — Is ordered to Rome 
for trial, 1069. His fourth missionary field opened up, 1069. 
Paul before Agrippa and Berenice, 1069. His appeal to 
Agrippa, 1070. The voyage to Rome — Tempest and ship¬ 
wreck, 1070, 1071. The incident of the viper, 1071. Three 
months’ detention at Malta, 1071. At Rome at last, 1072. 
Writes his Epistles while in prison, 1072. The Hebrew 
colony at Rome, 1072. Paul labors among the Jews at 
Rome, 1073. The Church, no longer a sect within Israel, 
becomes Gentile and cosmopolitan, 1073. Abrupt ending 
of the Book of Acts, 1074. Saint Luke a victim of Nero, 

1074. The two martyr apostles, 1074. Saint Peter the 
Apostle of the East as Saint Paul of the West, 1074. Saint 
Peter’s twenty-five years’ bishopric of Rome a myth, 1075. 
Visited Rome in his old age and suffered martyrdom there, 

1075. Saint Paul set at liberty after five years’ imprison- 
lnent, 1075. Plants the Gospel in Spain, 1075. His second 
imprisonment, 1075. The bloody persecution of Nero, 1076. 
In the shadow of the cross, 1076. The gates of glory are 
opened to the lion-hearted Paul by the sword of the Roman 
executioner, 1076. 





TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


xxi 


BOOK XV.—FROM THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY. 


Meaning of the word “world” in apostolic literature, 
1079. Peculiar significance to the primitive Church, 1079. 
Gross immorality of the Roman empire, 1079. Debasing 
influence of slavery, 1080. Immorality provides its own 
Nemesis, 1080. Conditions of slavery at Rome, 1080. 
Heartlessness fostered by the inhumanity of the amphi¬ 
theater, 1081. Brutality the ultimate logic of materialism, 
1081. Literature of the Augustan age fatal to purity, 1081. 
Licentiousness of the Roman patricians, 1082. Cruelties of 
Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, and Galba, 1082. Polytheis¬ 
tic religious system of the Romans, 1082. Apotheosis of the 
Caesars, 1082. Augustus inscribed as the Son of God and 
Nero recognized as a god, 1082. The enormity of Roman 
blasphemy, 1083. Intolerance of the pagan system, 1083. 
The new religion must choose between Christ and Caesar, 
1083. Gravity of the situation in the early Church, 1083. 
The Church and the world contrasted, 1084. Saint John’s 
vivid comparison in the Apocalypse, 1084. The solidarity 
of evil given the ominous title of Antichrist, 1084. Saint 
Paul’s description of the Antichrist, 1084. A personal 
Antichrist recognized by the early Christians of Antiochus 
in Emperor Caligula, 1085. The “man of sin” claiming 
worship due to the Almighty, 1085. The “ falling away ” of 
Israel, 1086. Christianity and Judaism not identical, 1086. 
The true definition of Antichrist, 1086. Withdrawal of 
Constantine to Constantinople, 1087. Succeeded by tyranny 
under Christian forms, 1087. Saint Paul recognizes the 
Antichrist in Nero, 1087. Nero the offspring of monsters of 
iniquity, 1088. Educated by a human tigress, 1090. Des¬ 
perate crimes of the mother to place Nero on the throne, 
1090. Appalling criminality of Nero, 1090. The imperial 
court a gilded brothel, 1090. Growth of the monster in 
wickedness, 1091. A year of portents — destruction of Pom¬ 
peii, the burning of Rome, 1092. Was Nero the incendiary ? 
1092. Persecution of the Christians, 1092. Dreadful suf¬ 
ferings and torture devised for the early martyrs, 1094. 
Nero acts the part of a personal devil, 1094. Retribution 
overtakes the royal felon, 1095. Decree of the Senate that 
he be scourged to death, 1095. Cowardly end of the wild 
beast, 1095. The Church indestructible, 1095. Resuscitation 
after the exterminating endeavors of her adversary may 
seem a miracle, 1095. The fall of Jerusalem, 1096. The 
intoxication of pride brings down the judgment of God, 
1097. Jerusalem her own assassin, 1097. The decree of 
Caligula that his effigy be placed in the Temple the begin¬ 
ning of tribulation, 1097. Grim forebodings haunt the 
doomed city, 1098. Portents in the Temple, 1098. Break¬ 
ing of the” storm, 1099. Pitiless massacre by Floras, 

1099. The revolt of Eleazar, 1099. Israel’s last victory, 

1100. Palestine in revolt and Jerusalem besieged, 1100. 
Judea converted into a gigantic shambles, 1100. Vespasian 
on the throne at Rome, 1102. Titus, his son, ordered to 
reduce Jerusalem, 1102. Final investment of the Holy 
City, 1103. The Temple reduced to ashes, 1103. Heroic 
defense of Simon and John, 1103. Awful culmination of 
the doom, 1103. The City of David laid waste; the plow 
driven through the site of the Temple, 1104. Secret of 
Jerusalem’s disappearance from history, 1104,1105. Patience 
of God with an unbelieving people, 1105. The rejection of 
Christ, 1105. Martyrdom of Saint James, brother of our 
Lord, 1105. Graphic description by Josephus of Saint 
James’ testimony and taking off, 1106. The climax of guilt 
and the end of forbearance, 1106. Bondage of Jerusalem 
the emancipation of Christianity, 1106. Judaizing teachers 
and their work, 1107. Escape of the true Church from 
Jerusalem, 1107. Warned by revelation, they flee the 
wretched city and escape to Pella in Perea, 1107. Parting 
company with the Jewish race, 1108. What does mankind 
owe to the Jew? 1108. The Bible of humanity, 1108. The 
union of morality with religion, 1108. The exaltation of 
the family, 1109. Recognition of God as the Creator, 1109. 
Mankind debtor to the Jew, 1109. The apostle of love, 

1109. James the Just the brother of Christ, 1109. _ Mary 
committed to the care of John, son of Salome, the sister of 
Mary, 1110. Youngest of the apostles destined to be the 
oldest and the last, 1110. The chief figure and leader of the 
Church after the martyrdom of Saint Paul and Saint James, 

1110. His removal to Ephesus, 1112. The temple in which 
the heathen worshiped Diana, 1112. Cosmopolitan charac¬ 
ter and turbulent temper of the population, 1112. Retro¬ 
gression of the seven churches of Asia, 1113. Opinions 
and conduct of believers tainted by oriental thought and 


Alexandrian speculation, 1113. Cerinthus, the wolf in the 
sheepfold, 1113. The motives, mission, and method of John 
in combating error, 1113. His exile on the island of Patmos, 

1113. Preponderance of authority fixes the date in the 
reign of Domitian, 1114. The writing of the Apocalypse, 

1114. Analysis of the work and mission of Saint John, 
1114. Endued with tenderness and sympathy, yet capable 
of sternness, and uncompromising in his devotion to justice, 

1116. Intellectual and spiritual growth from beginning to 
end of his career, 1116. The lesson of love imparted to his 
disciples by the Master, 1117. Saint John its exemplar, 

1117. The leaders of the early Church not monotonous 
counterparts of each other, 1117. Their varying character¬ 
istics, 1117. Saint John’s task to disclose the place of love in 
the Christian system, 1118. The nineteenth century has 
rediscovered the gospel of love, 1118. The Synoptic period 
passing away and the Johannean era ushering in the mil¬ 
lennium, 1119. Saint John’s last years on earth, 1119. Fell 
asleep at Ephesus, 1119. Anecdotes of his declining years 
handed down by tradition, 1120. The advance of Chris¬ 
tianity, 1121. Romans at first look on the Christians as an 
extension of Judaism, 1121. Introduction of the word 
“Catholic” as applied to the Church, 1122. Marvelous 
spread of Christianity at close of the first century, 1122. 
The new religion spread through all the nations, 1123. 
Services of the Christian religion under Marcus Aurelius, 

1123. “A work greater than the work of any man,” 1123. 
Converts are from all classes, the poor and ignorant and 
people of distinction, even those of “ Caesar’s household,” 

1124. Among the believers and martyrs were Consul 
Flavius Clemens and his wife, cousins of the emperor, 1125. 
Severus and Hadrian order temples erected to Christ, 1125. 
The house of the Emperor Valerian “ a very church of 
God,” 1125. Onward movement of the Church accompa¬ 
nied by an onward and upward tendency, 1126. Haunted 
for a time by the ghost of Judaism, 1126. The informal 
conclave and the memorial meal developing into the costly 
and beautiful forms of the Christian Temple, 1127. Organi¬ 
zation of sodalities to enable the churches to hold proper¬ 
ties, 1127. First legal recognition of the Church by the 
Edict of Milan, 303 A. D., 1128. Permitted to receive 
bequests by Constantine, 1128. Organization and method 
introduced into Church authority, 1128. Strength and 
coherence acquired, 1128. Beginning as a protest against 
imperial usurpation, the Christian empire ends by becoming 
more centralized than the empire itself, 1129. Protests 
against ecclesiastical dictatorship, 1129. Episcopacy en¬ 
throned in the capital of the empire by Victor, the first 
Latin bishop, 1125. Objectors denominated “Puritans,” 
1129. Rome upheld by the Synod of Antioch, 1129. Prog¬ 
ress in the intellectual life of Christianity from the acces¬ 
sion of Hadrian, 1129. Development and definition of 
doctrine in the second century, 1130. Differences of inter¬ 
pretation bring about the first approximation to a creed- 
form, 1131. Mental intensity of this period, 1131. Irenseus, 
Papias, Quadratus, Basilides, Agrippa Castor, Valentine, 
Heracleon, Ptolemseus, Marcus, Tatian, and a host of bright 
intellectual lights and their various speculative issues, 1131, 

1132. Christianity cannot remain stagnant and stationary 
and continue true to itself, 1132. Religion not a phenome¬ 
non whose total import is exhausted by a few great theo¬ 
logians, 1132. Must constantly evolve its inexhaustible 
potentialities, and enlarge the sphere of its influence, 

1133. The ministry of charity, 1133. Concentration of 
wealth precipitated the fall of the Roman empire, 1133. 
The efforts of the Gracchi to equalize social conditions, 1134. 
The ills created by the selfish passions not to be cured by 
theories, 1134. Prosperity restored at the beginning of the 
empire by Augustus, but upon a false foundation, 1136. 
500,000 souls dependent upon the public bounty, 1136. 
Decline of self-reliance and increased clamor among the 
beneficiaries, 1136. Some notable instances of real and 
spontaneous benevolence, 1137. Christianity confronts the 
growing evil of pauperism, 1137. Modern interest in tem¬ 
poralities merely a return to the original position of the 
Church, 1138. Our religion primarily a redemption and 
afterward a reform, 1138. Revealed history of religion 
intimately blended with national development and pros¬ 
perity, 1138. The orderly social arrangements and system¬ 
atic charity in the Sacred Canon show that Christianity 
contemplated from the beginning the regeneration of soci¬ 
ety as well as of the individual, 1138. Charity not an 



XX11 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


incident or diversion, but one of the chief concerns of a 
Christian congregation, 1138. State benevolence merely 
prudential; that of the Church for love of God and man, 

1139. In those days “the glory of a bishop lay in relieving 
the poverty of the poor,” 1139. The service of charity 
sanctified and exalted, 1139. The wise lesson taught the 
unfortunate that God was watching over them and providing 
for their necessities, 1139. Voluntary contributions, the 
gift of Christian love, through the offices of the Church, 
supported the widow and orphan, the sick and needy, the 
prisoner and the stranger, 1140. Holy women consecrated 
to the work of philanthropy, 1140. Vastness and variety 
of the benefactions which distinguished the early Church, 

1140. Benevolence that confronted and confounded the 
heathen world, 1141. Modern pretenses of interest in the 
destitute, without action in their behalf, have often lost the 
confidence of the working people, but in the first three cen¬ 
turies, the lowly, the despised,.the slave, and the outcast 
were welcomed to the cross and were not disappointed, 

1141. All men love their friends; Christians alone love 
their enemies, 1141. Heroic conduct of Christians in the 
pestilence of Alexandria, 1142. Systematic care that none 
of the brethren should become paupers, 1142. Churches of 
the early days not aristocratic clubs seeking social distinction 
through ecclesiastical affiliations, but honest and earnest 
souls seeking to redeem their fellows from sin and shame, 

1142. The orphan cared for, but bounty withheld from the 
idle and shiftless, 1142. The Church appointed of God to 
the oversight of the helpless extended her charities to the 
slave, 1144. The Agapse or feasts of love — a common table 
where rich and poor met on terms of perfect equality, 1144. 
Influence of the ministry of charity in overcoming" pagan 
antagonism, 1145. If the modern Church should ever again 
be charitable with the charity of the early centuries, she 
could easily make herself mistress of the world, 1145. In 
the ministration of charity the letter killeth; the spirit 
quickeneth, 1145. Obscuration of charity in the second 
century, 1146. Selfishness usurps the name and the robes of 
charity, 1146. Profit takes the place of philanthropy as a 
motive, 1146. Donations a pious device to secure a throne 
in heaven, 1146. The Church increases in wealth ; her 
secular glory her spiritual shame, 1147. A wretched traffic, 
purchasing security at the cost of freedom, and regal 
authority at the cost of spiritual power, 1147. No measure 
can put an end to poverty that fails to bring the helper 
and the helped into personal relations of love and sympa¬ 
thy, 1147. The memorials of faith, 1148. Epitaphs and 
mortuary symbols commentaries on the progress of man¬ 
kind, 1148. Historic knowledge gathered from Roman tombs, 
1148. Some remarkable epitaphs of the pre-Christian era, 
1148. Pathetic interest of the catacombs of Rome where 
persecuted saints sought an altar and a grave, 1149. Origin 
of these gloomy galleries, 1149. C;emeteria—sleeping 
places, 1149. Afforded safety and place of worship for the 
living and sepulture for the dead, 1150. Enormous space 
occupied by the burial vaults of Christian Rome, 1150. 800 
to 900 miles of galleries, with a population of the dead of 
6,000,000 or 7,000,000. Discovery of the city of the dead in 
1578, 1152. Tombs despoiled by greed and rapacity, and by 
archaeological vandals, 1152. Eloquent testimony to the 
doctrine of the resurrection, 1154. Character of the mortu¬ 
ary symbols, 1154. Christ, the Good Shepherd, a favorite 
symbol, 1154. These conceptions indicate the belief of the 
Church of the Catacombs that Christianity is a redemption, 
and represent Jesus as the sin-bearer seeking the lost, 1155. 
Sacred history exemplified, 1155. Worshipers in the cata¬ 
combs wrote their confession of faith .with the chisel and 
hammer, and outlined their creed with brush and pencil, 
1155. The martyrs honored in the earven symbols, 1155. 
Lessons gathered from a mortuary inscription, 1156. Ex¬ 
alted thoughts of the martyrs in their hour of agony, 1156. 


Why God permitted these cruelties, 1156. His people puri¬ 
fied in the furnace of affliction, 1158-1160. The same 
through all ages, 1160. Savage selfishness of commerce in 
these days, 1160. The scourge necessary to prevent the 
Church from falling into ease and luxury. 1160. The times 
of terror, 1161. Persecution by the populace, 1161. Dia¬ 
bolical cruelty of the insensate mob, 1161. The sublime 
martyrdom of Poly carp, 1162. Common ferocity of the 
ignorant populace and the most enlightened and philosoph¬ 
ical of the heathen, 1163. The persecution ordered by 
Diocletian — beginning of the era of the martyrs, 1163. 
“Christians to the lions!” 1163. Christianity becomes a 
government problem in the time of Trajan, 1164. Forsak¬ 
ing of the temples of idolatry for the new religion in 
Bithynia, and the “clemency of despotism” of Pliny, 1164. 
The collision between Christianity and paganism inevita¬ 
ble, 1165. New religion challenged the right of all other 
religions to exist, 1165. The persecuted called on to execrate 
The Name, 1165. Ignatius courageously testifies to the 
faith before Trajan, and is cast to the lions, 1166. The 
unwarranted extenuation of historians, 1167. Incredible 
horrors which the actual tortures of the martyrs reveal, 

1167. Devilish ingenuity and refinement of the cruelties 
practiced, 1168. Ten general persecutions in 300 years, 

1168. Desolate and outcast plight of the proscribed Church, 
1168. The most humane of the emperors not less ferocious 
in the persecution of Christians, 1169. Martyrdom of Jus¬ 
tin Martyr, 1169. The hand of Commodus stayed for a 
time by a “God-loving concubine,” 1170. Persecutions 
continue with varying intensity through a list of rulers to 
the time of Decius, 1170. The year of infamy, 258 A. D., 
1171. Majestic testimony of Bishop Cyprian, 1171. After 
a respite under Gallienus, the crowning persecution of Dio¬ 
cletian, 1172. Attempt to abolish Christianity by royal 
proclamation, 1172. Still new methods of devilish cruelty 
evolved by the persecutors, 1172. The butchers at last 
grow weary of the slaughter, 1174. Galerius ends the 
persecutions, 1174. No weapon can ultimately prevail 
against Christ’s Church, 1174. Touching legend of Saint 
Peter, 1175. The message of the Spirit is everything to the 
conqueror: nothing to the craven, 1175. The year 312 
memorable to Christians. 1176. The storm from across 
the Alps, 1176. Irresistible approach of the enemy, 1177. 
Final act of the tragedy, 1177. The proud praetorian guard 
disappears from history, 1177. Fall of Maxentius before 
the triumphant arms of Constantine the Great, 1178. Re¬ 
view of preceding intrigues, 1180. The challenge of Lucin- 
ius — the despiser of Christ condemned out of his own 
mouth, 1180. The infamies of Maxentius, 1181. The char¬ 
acter of Constantine, 1181. A combination of vices and 
virtues, 1181. Though stained with blood of wife and child 
believed himself to be a Christian, 1181. Only baptized on 
the verge of the grave, 1182. Acquitted of the charge of 
hypocrisy, 1182 Mother of Constantine receives the faith 
in Britain, at York, 1183. He is educated to become the 
protector of the Church, 1183. The legend of the blazing 
cross, 1183. The Labarum with its Christian monogram 
given to the legions of the Empire, 1183. The decree of 
toleration, restitution of property, and restoration of rights 
of citizenship to Christians, 1184. Edict of Milan, the 
Magna Charta of Christianity, 1185. Finally paganism is 
forbidden, and the authority of the Church as the only 
true Church publicly recognized and enforced, 1186. The 
triumph of the Church weakened by concession and adap¬ 
tation, 1187. Alliance of Church and State always a griev¬ 
ous misfortune, 1187. The “Donation of Constantine” a 
myth, 1188. Conformity of the Church to the New Testa¬ 
ment ideal is a possible miracle, 1189. Christ declared by 
decree of the Senate to be King of the Florentine people, 
1190. The example of the Florentines should appeal to us 
at the close of the nineteenth century, 1190. Finis, 1190. 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PAGE 

Abram and Melchizedek. Raphael 167 

Ascent of the Lower Range of Sinai David Roberts 409 

Achan’s Punishment. Melville 330 

Ashdod. David Roberts 605 

Angel’s Salutation, The . Rida 817 

Adoration of the Golden Calf. Raphael 263 

Agrippina.'. Antai 1089 

Augustus C.esar. 1135 


Blessing the Child Jesus in the Temple. . .Dowling 829 


Blessed Future . Weslall 673 

Building of the Temple ... Raphael 529 


Christ and the Adulteress. Emil Siynol 901 

Calling of Matthew, The . Bida 861 

Christ Raiseth the Widow’s Son . Bida 873 

Christ Healeth the Man with Palsy. Bida 859 

Christ Tempted of the Devil. Bida 839 

C.esarea Philippi . Frith Series 1067 

Cana . David Roberts 849 

Cape Blanco. David Roberts 355 

Crucifixion, The. Bida 949 

Caphias, Looking Toward Mt. Carmel. David Roberts 617 

Cedars of Lebanon . Bartlet 362 

Christ and His Saints ....Early Christian Symbolisms 1157 

Constantine the Great. Edw. Giraudon 1179 

Church and Her Foes, The. Early Christian Symbolisms 1159 


Destruction of Pharaoh’s Host. Martin 243 

David Mourning for Absalom. Dore 509 

David Playing before Saul . W. B. Scott 479 

Descent Upon the Valley of the Jordan. 

David Roberts 383 

Departure from Egypt . Bida 825 

Dead Sea, The . David. Roberts 169 

Dipping Joseph’s Coat in Goat’s Blood. Vernel 197 

David and Abigail . Rubens 524 

Destruction of Sodom. Bida 163 

Daughter of J ephtha, The. 435 

Daughters of Jerusalem. Bida 947 

Domitianus.'. 1H5 


Ephesus. HU 

Exodus from Egypt. J Martin 237 

Elim .. Frith Series 367 

Entrance to Tomb of the Kings. David Roberts 537 

Entrance to Nablous . David Roberts 579 

Esther Crowned . Guido 584 

Fortress of Ibrim Nubia . David Roberts 587 

Fountain of Job . David Roberts 303 

Foretelling the Destruction of Jerusalem. . .Begas 984 
From Martyr’s Tomb. G. M. Redaway 1143 

Great Hall at Karnak . David Roberts 629 

Great Portico, Phil.e. David Roberts 623 

Great Temple, A. David Roberts 457 

Good Samaritan .. Bida 905 


page 

Good Samaritan. Bida 907 

Gaza. David Roberts 439 

Good Shepherd. Bida 773 

Hebron .r.. 721 

Hill of the Canaanites. Frith Series 283 

Holding Up Moses’ Hands. 253 

High Priest Entering Holy Place. 345 

Healing the Lame Man at the Beautiful Gate... 1005 
Hagar in the Desert . Mola 212 

Idol Worship. 531 

Isaiah. 569 

Joseph of Arimathea. Bida 955 

Joseph’s Dream. Raphael 193 

John of Patmos. ... ... Gustav Koniy 991 

Joshua Commanding the Sun to Stand Still Martin 393 

Joseph Interpreting Pharaoh’s Dream. Raphael 203 

Job. 295 

Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. David Roberts 1031 
Joseph’s Brethren Showing Coat of Many Colors. 

11. Warren 199 

Jesus Leading the Blind Man. Bida 785 

Jesus Healeth the Deaf Man. Bida 887 

Jesus Asleep During a Storm. Bida 883 

Jesus in Prayer . Bida 747 

Jesus on the Mount of Olives. Bida 987 

Jesus Teaching in a Ship. Bida 855 

Jesus Before Pilate. Bida 943 

Jerusalem from the South. David Roberts 611 

Jerusalem from the Road to Bethany . David Roberts 665 

Jesus Appears to the Women . . Bida 969 

Joseph Sold by His Brethren. Raphael 195 

Jesus Cursetii the Fig Tree. Bida 931 

Jesus Gives Peter His Charge . Bida 895 

Jesus Driving the Money Changers Out of the 

Temple. Bida 847 

Jesus and His Disciples in the Cornfield. Bida 867 

Jesus and Saint Peter on the Sea. Bida 891 

Jesus Delivered to the Soldiers. .. Bida 945 

John the Baptist. Raphael 812 

King and the Prophet, The. 557 

Luke, Saint. Bida 971 

Light of the World. Holman Hunt 907 

“Lay Not Thine Hand on Him”. 177 

Leah and Rachel. 191 

“Lazarus, Come Forth!”. Bida 917 

Last Supper, The. Bida 1003 

Moses and the Brazen Serpent. Poussin 273 

Matthew, Saint. Bida 759 

Miriam’s Song of Triumph. 245 

Mark, Saint. Bida 973 

Man Blind from Birth, The. Bida 865 

Marah. Frith Series 311 


xxiii 























































































XXIV 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PAGE 

Mother and Brethren of Jesus. Bid a 779 

Moses (Statuary).;■. Michaelangelo 231 

Mary Magdalen at Christ’s Feet. Bida 875 

Mount Coresus, Ephesus. Frith Series 1061 

Mount Horeb. David Roberts 551 

Moses Receiving the Tablets. B . West 315 

Mother of Moses. 219 

Moses Presenting the Tablets. Raphael 259 

Mount Tabor, from Plain of Esdraelon . David Roberts 421 

Meeting of Jacob and Rachel. Raphael 189 

Mount Hor, from Petra. David Roberts 329 

Miraculous Draught of Fishes . Bida 979 

Moses Defending the Women. Poussin 277 

Mary and Martha. .. . Coypel 909 

Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah. 449 

Nadab and Abihu. 265 

Nazareth. David Roberts 1043 

Nero. 1093 

Noah’s Sacrifice. 139 

“Of Such is the Kingdom of Heaven”. Bida 921 

Pharisee and the Publican, The. Bida 707 

“Peace Be to This House”. Bida 927 

Plain of Esdraelon. Frith Series 369 

Pharaoh’s Daughter and Moses. . 221 

Pillar of Absalom, The. David Roberts 507 

Pool of Siloam, The. David Roberts 473 

Paul and Barnabas at Lystra. Raphael 1051 

Parable of the Sower. Bida 879 

Peter’s Repentance. Bida 941 

Prophet Elijah, The. West 545 

Palsied Man Cured. Jouvent 963 

Queen of Sheba and Solomon. Raphael 521 

Revelation, The. 66 

Rebekah and Eliezer. H. Vemet 179 

Rebekah Accepting Eliezer’s Presents. ... IT. Vemet 181 

Ruth. Wheatly 381 

Rich Young Man, The. Bida 923 

Resurrection Morning. Axel Ender 965 

Source of the Jordan. Frith Series 385 

Saint Matthew. Bida 759 

Saint Luke. Bida 971 

Saint Mark. Rida 973 

Savior, The. Bida 321 

Sampson.A\ Westall 441 

Sarepta. David Roberts bib 

Scribes and Pharisees. Bida 975 

Sermon on the Mount, The. Bida 869 

Symbolism. G. M . Redaway 1153 

Symbols from the Catacombs. G. M. Redaway 1151 

Tobias and the Angel. 697 

Triumph of Mordecat. 671 

Triumph of Aaron’s Rod. 233 

Treachery of Judas, The. Bida 937 


PAGE 

Thebes. David Roberts 657 

Ten Lepers, The. Bida 919 

Temple of Abu-Simbel. David Roberts 643 

The Night . Correggio 821 

Tomer of David. David Roberts 493 

Three Wise Men of the East, The. Bida 823 

Triumph of David. Raphael 481 

Transfiguration. Raphael 992 

Thyatira. Allom 1057 

Vespasian . 1101 

Woman of Samaria. Bida 851 

Women Bring Sm’eet Spices . Bida 961 

Wise Men’s Offering... 789 

Wav’, the Truth, and the Life, The. Bida 1078 


FACSIMILES. 


Folio fro.m Babylonian Talmud. 

Leaf fro.m “Codex Curtisianus”. 

Leaf from “Codex Curtisianus”. 

Leaf fro.m “Codex Petropolitanus”. 

From the Esther Roll. 

Leaf from Alexandrian Manuscript. 

Moabite Stone. 

Siloam Inscription. 

Tel El-Amarna Tablet. 

Tora Roll. 

A Leaf from Utrecht Psalter. 


opposite 72 

“ 72c 

“ 77 

“ 74 a 

“ 76 

“ 807 

“ 541 

“ 74 

“ 37 

“ 76 a 

“ 75 


MAPS. 

Ancient and Modern Jerusalem .between 498, 499 

Missionary Tours of Paui. “ 1058, 1059 

Palestine Under the Judges and Kings “ 466, 467 

Palestine in the Time of Christ. “ 834, 835 

The Routes of the Israelites in the 

Desert . “ 234, 235 

Travels of Our Savior . “ 914, 915 

The World According to Moses. “ 146, 147 


PORTRAITS. 


Beet, Joseph Agar. 744 

Bristol, Frank M. 526 

Capen, Elmer H. 154 

Curtiss, Samuel Ives. 68 

Farrar, F. W. 80 

Gibson, J. Monro. 994 

Gladstone, William Ewart. 2 

Gregory’, Caspar Rene. 790 

Gunsaulus, Frank W. 214 

Hale, Edward Everett. 690 

Hart, Samuel. 952 

Lorimer, George C. ii 

MacArthur, Robert S . 364 

Moore, W. T. 602 

Pentecost, George F . 280 

Sayce, A. H. 28 

SuMMERBELL, M.YRTYN. 468 

Wilkinson, William Cleaver. 814 




































































































. 











































































- 






. 
















' 































4 


















































































GENERAL INTRODUCTION, 


y 

Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 


HAWARDEN CASTLE, CHESTER, ENGLAND. 





GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 


i. 

TT sometimes happens, in the crisis of a great engagement, that the fiercest of the conflict 

rages round the standard, which the one party is struggling to capture and the other to 
save from the grasp of hostile hands; and it is even so at the present day with reference to the 
subject of this prefatory notice. There is a banner which waves, and which is seen to wave, on 
high, over the whole of that field — the widest and by far the most noteworthy in the world — 
on which is being fought out the battle that is the greatest of all battles, and that ultimately 
may be found to include all the rest: the battle of belief in Christ. Is there, or is there not, 
one great and special revelation of the will of God to mankind, vital to the welfare of the 
human race? 

This banner is the banner of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Vast 
and essential as is the living agency by which the work of the Gospel is to be carried on, and 
to which, indeed, it was first committed by the Savior, that living agency is for the present 
broken up into fractions, which seem to maintain or even to consolidate themselves on their 
separate bases, and no one among which commands the adhesion of so much as one moiety of 
the entire body. But there is no division, or at the least there is no great and vital division, 
among Christians even as to the canon of the older Testament; as to the Testament of the 
Gospel, or the new covenant, there is no division at all. 

There was a preparatory period after the ascension of our Lord, approaching three 
centuries in extent, during which the several books of the New Testament were exercising a 
profound and comprehensive influence, although the Canon, or complete list of the books 
acknowledged as due to divine inspiration, had not yet been completed. Even after that 
preliminary stage, paganism had enough of remaining strength in its death agony to continue 
its partial and spasmodic efforts, which can hardly be said to have altogether ceased when the 
sword of Mahomet and his successors invaded and seriously curtailed the territory that had been 
already won by the Gospel. Yet, upon the whole, the boundaries of the Church, through the 
course of many centuries, were greatly widened. Not, indeed, without many and sad diversities 
of experience: aberrations in doctrine, ruptures of communion, extravagant assumptions of 
authority, and frightful corruption of manners acknowledged on all hands. Yet the life from 
within could not be repressed, and more and more lands were added to the Gospel profession. 
In modern times, the process of occupying the earth has been carried on more largely by growth 
of population and by emigration than by bringing new nations within the fold. But during 
the nineteenth century there has been a marked renewal of activity and progress. Doubtless 
the kingdom of God within us has been even more doubtful and defective in its development 
than the kingdom of God without us. But wherever Christianity has gone, whatever its agents 
have taught, and however little its professors may have adorned their calling, at all times and 
in all places it has carried with it the acknowledgment of the Holy Scriptures. 

Contemporaneously with the attainment and maintenance of this great and unrivaled 
ascendency, and in the absence of any comprehensive and effective warfare against it from 
beyond the borders of Christendom, the conflict, which was noticed at the outset of the present 
paper, has been raised against this great and acknowledged treasure of all Christians from 



6 


THE POWER OF CHRISTIANITY. 


within the borders of Christendom itself, and carried on wholly or mainly by those who have 
passed through the waters of baptism. But formidable as it is, it does not imply either any 
disposition on the part of the members of Christian communities generally to abate their 
allegiance to the Holy Word, or their hopes of the coming time. Indeed, it has been simulta¬ 
neously with the undermining and disintegrating movement that the religion of Christ has 
assumed more visibly than ever a commanding position in the world. It is for mankind the 
greatest of all phenomena, the greatest of all facts. It is the dominant religion of the inhabit¬ 
ants of this planet at least in two important respects. It commands the largest number of 
professing adherents. If we estimate the population of the globe at fourteen hundred millions 
(and some would state a higher figure), between four and five hundred millions of these, or 
one-third of the whole, are professing Christians; and at every point of the circuit the question 
is not one of losing ground, but of gaining it. The fallacy which accepted the vast population 
of China as Buddhists in the mass has been exploded, and it is plain that no other religion 
approaches the numerical strength of Christianity; doubtful, indeed, whether there be any that 
reaches to one-half of it. The second of the particulars now under view is perhaps even more 
important. Christianity is the religion in the command of whose professors is lodged a propor¬ 
tion of power far exceeding its superiority of numbers; and this power is both moral and 
material. In the area of controversy it can hardly be said to have a serious antagonist. 
Force, secular or physical, is accumulated in the hands of Christians in a proportion absolutely 
overwhelming; and the accumulation of influence is not less remarkable than that of force. 
This is not surprising, for all the elements of influence have their home within the Christian 
precinct. The art, the literature, the systematized industry, invention, and commerce—in one 
word the power—of the world are almost wholly Christian. In Christendom alone there seems 
to lie an inexhaustible energy of world-wide expansion. The nations of Christendom are 
everywhere arbiters of the fate of non-christian nations. 

In every part and parcel of the mass now so wondrously developed and diversified, there 
is, and there has for fifteen hundred years been rendered, an allegiance to the Holy Bible, alike 
uniform, uninterrupted, and unreserved. And that allegiance was consistently applied (though 
with limited means) in promoting the free circulation of the Scriptures until the sixteenth 
century, when the circumstances of the time brought about a change, at least within the pale 
of the Latin or Western Church. And although in the controversies of the day the Bible 
may perhaps be said to stand upon the defensive, it will surely be admitted that, in and since 
the early part of the now almost expiring century, it may be said to have issued a kind of 
challenge to the powers of the world at large. This challenge was first delivered principally 
from Great Britain, and only by a portion of the Christian body, although that body is now 
more united with respect to its form; which was the circulation of the sacred volume without 
note or comment. They were Protestants, they were English-speaking Protestants, they were 
English-speaking Protestants chiefly of the non-conforming type, or in varying degrees of 
sympathy with it, who conceived the idea of an association marked, even in its day of small 
things, by its aspiring and comprehensive aims. Bishop Heber, in the early infancy of modern 
missions, wrote as to their work, the lines, 

Waft, waft, ye winds, his story, 

And you, ye waters, roll, 

Till, like a sea of glory, 

It spreads from pole to pole. 

The society, which undertook the work, was not to represent, befriend, or oppose, any 
particular community of Christians, but it was to circulate the Divine Word among all nations 
and in all languages. They were to open a great armory where all who would were to find 


CIRCULATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 


greatly augmented facilities for obtaining the chief weapon needed in the work of conversion. 
They were not deterred from their undertaking by the enormous difficulty of reproducing the 
sacred text in countless tongues, most of them imperfectly understood, many of them wholly 
unknown, and spoken only by races of uncivilized men, equipped with none but the most 
limited vocabularies and the narrowest ideas. Nor was their work arrested by the recollection 
that the church of the New Testament was propagated under the authority of our Savior, in its 
earlier experiences, not by written documents, but by the agency of living men. They may 
have reasoned on the belief that living men would continue to supply their proper propelling 
force, and would derive, from a larger supply of copies of the written Word, a manifest increase 
of power in the fulfillment of their work. Who can deny that this was a brave and a great, 
even if aq incomplete conception ? It would be alike a violation of charity and of common 
sense to surmise that the founders of the British and Foreign Bible Society had for their 
leading, or probably for an acknowledged aim any polemical advantage in those controversies 
which divide Christians. They probably regarded the Scriptures not as a tangled thicket of 
dispute, but as “ a green pasture ” of immeasurable richness for the souls of the people of God. 

The material result has been beyond doubt remarkable. The Sacred Scriptures have been 
sown broadcast over the world; and in a new sense “ their sound has gone out into all lands.” 
By the agency of this society taken alone, the Bible or integral parts of it have been circulated 
to the extent of more than one hundred and forty million copies, 1 in three hundred and twenty 
languages and without any note or comment. Even the purely philological effect of this vast 
operation has been remarkable. A variety of languages, previously without organization of 
any kind, have, since and in connection with the action of the society, come to be possessed of 
lexicons and grammars. There is a further very large British circulation independent of the 
society, but we may justly borrow from the old mythologies to term it the hundred-handed and 
the hundred-eyed. Its daily issues from its different depots exceed twelve thousand copies, 2 and 
in 1892 they rose for the year to four millions. A kindred institution in America likewise 
operates upon a very large, if a less gigantic scale. Has this been a casting of pearls before 
swine, in the sense of thrusting the sacred volume wholesale upon men unprepared for its 
becoming reception ? Who can say but that such miscarriage may have occurred at some point 
of a prolonged experience, and a vast organization ? But there is no reason known to me for 
supposing that such things, if indeed they have happened, have been more than rare exceptions. 
This immense multiplication of the copies of Scripture has been not only contemporaneous, but 
associated with that remarkable enlargement of missionary activity, which has supplied a 
prominent feature of the religious history of this century, and especially of its latter moiety. 

The mental questionings of these times were doubtless brought to bear upon the Scrip¬ 
tures apart from any efforts made to extend their circulation and their influence. These were 
most active in Germany, which had smaller concern with Bible societies or missions. But the 
challenge implied in a scheme which may be said to have aimed at carrying the Bible to every 
member of the human family might also be likely to concentrate the electric fluid of criticism 
floating in the atmosphere, and to precipitate it upon the object which was becoming so provok- 
ingly conspicuous. 


II. 

If we now turn to the contents of our sacred books, we at once perceive that they have 
not been framed with any view of evading conflict by the limitation of claims and pretensions. 
Of the other sacred books, current in the world among various peoples, they take no notice 


1 Annual Report of the Society for 1894, p. 314; with an allowance for the subsequent months not included. 

2 The “ Gospel in Many Tongues,” p. 88. 



8 


THE SCRIPTURES AND OTHER SACRED WRITINGS CONTRASTED. 


whatever. Their claim to authority is absolute throughout; and the God in whose name they 
speak is proclaimed all.along as the only and as the universal God. 

It is to be borne in mind that they never speak of themselves as a whole; although the 
Old Testament obtains recognition in that character not only from the Jewish race, but from 
our Savior, in the threefold and popularly understood division of the Law, the Prophets, and 
the Psalms. The obvious reason of this last designation, which was meant to embrace the 
whole Hagiograplia, was that the Psalms were named first in the list of these books. The New 
Testament was gradually formed in separate books, as the Old had been. These books appear 
all to have been issued within about two generations after the lifetime of our Lord, but more 
than two centuries passed before their systematic acknowledgment and incorporation in a col¬ 
lected mass, although the number of books which did not obtain immediate recognition, so far 
as they were known, was a very small proportion of the whole. But here we perceive one of the 
high prerogatives of the Scriptures which helps to explain their close and elastic adaptation to 
the progressive needs of our race. No other sacred books are so minutely arid exactly divided 
by periods and by authorship. No others cover so vast a range of time and of diversified 
human history. They began for a family, and they ended for a world. Not given at once and 
in stereotype, but “ at sundry times and in divers manners.” 1 This is one of many points of 
severalty on which it will be right to touch, as marking them off from other records purporting 
to be in the same mode and sense divine. Nor have they at any period wanted the advantage 
of attestation from without. It was the office, first of the Jewish people and then of the 
Christian Church, to bear to them an audible and living witness, which has sounded through 
all the ages. The flock have attested the documents, while the documents have checked the 
aberrations and rebuked the shortcomings and the corruptions of the flock. They constitute 
one great and majestic trilogy, as they present to us, first, the creation and completion of the 
material universe, with the introduction of man to his earthly home; secondly, his fall from 
innocence into a state fundamentally deteriorated, through willful sin, together with the imme¬ 
diate dawning of “ a light in a dark place,” through promises which were to save him from 
despair; and thirdly, the great redemption from the ruin thus let loose, by the life, death, and 
resurrection of our Lord and Savior, with a course of prophetic intimations reaching to the 
consummation of the world. Is there any other case of a collection of records which thus 
deals with the destinies of our race from its cradle to its grave, and in this comprehensive grasp 
asserts its commanding authority over the race as a whole ? I apprehend that all other docu¬ 
ments claiming kindred with the Bible rather bear the stamp of the occasional or accidental, 
at any rate of a work ended and put by. 

The question of the authorship of the several books of Holy Scripture is far from being 
identical with that of their genuineness and authority. According to the general and thor¬ 
oughly reasonable belief of Jews and Christians, this authorship began with Moses, a great man 
whose position in history is far too solidly established to be shaken. The form of the earliest 
book appears to show that he collected, under the divine guidance, those primitive traditions of 
the race, which, whether accurate or not in every particular, retain, and alone retain, all the 
features required in order to convey to us the outlines of divine government in the creation, 
administration, and redemption of the world. It is not necessary here to inquire whether each 
and every portion of the books ascribed to Moses had him for its author, or whether, besides the 
palpable case of the chapter 2 which relates his death, other additions in furtherance and expo¬ 
sition of his career may have been made. Christendom at large, as well as the Jewish nation, 
firmly believe that he and none other was the great legislator of the Hebrew race; that the vital 
substance of his legislation remains embodied in the Pentateuch ; and, as it may bt* added, that 
never in human history was any legislation so profoundly and so durably stamped upon the life, 


1 Hebrews i, 1. 


Deuteronomy xxxiv. 



THE UNITY OF GOD. 


9 


character and experiences, even down to the visible and clamant witness of the present day, of 
those to whom it was addressed. 

The higher and inner meaning of these general statements has yet to be brought more 
pointedly into view. We justly dwell upon the unapproachable elevation, and the wonderful 
purity of the teachings of the Bible in their general tenor. But it cannot be too clearly under¬ 
stood, when attempts are made to reduce the Bible to the level of other ancient records, that we 
claim on its behalf this distinction and exclusive character, that it revealed to man truths 
absolutely vital to all pure religion, and generally admitted to be so, but which were not 
revealed elsewhere. Our religion, and some other religions extant at the present day, rest upon 
the doctrine of the unity of God. The Christian creeds, like the Scriptures as Christians in 
general hold them, teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; but this doctrine of the Holy Trinity 
presupposes, and is based and built upon, the doctrine of the unity. When we proceed to 
ask how, when this unity has been so largely — nay, in ancient times so prevailingly — denied 
and set aside, it has been kept alive in the world during the long period of nearly universal 
darkness and safely handed down to us, the reply is that it was upheld, and upheld exclusively, 
as a living article of religious obligation, in one small country, among one small and generally 
disparaged people, and that the country and the people were those who received this precious 
truth and preserved it in and by the Scriptures of the Old Testament. 

And not only did those Scriptures teach the unity of God, but they taught it with an 
emphasis, persistency, and authority such as no other work of any period or authorship has 
equaled ; and the doctrine of the New Testament on this subject is really no more than an echo 
from the doctrine of the Old. If this truth was thus taught by the Old Testament in the Law, 
and the Prophets, and the Psalms, to the Hebrew race, and that through a long course of 
centuries, while it was everywhere else at least, and more commonly denied, we have only to 
take further into view the generally acknowledged truth, that it supplies the only foundation on 
which the fabric of . a pure religion can be reared, in order to make good, as among the old 
sacred books of the world, not only the superior, but, so far as regards the very heart, root, and 
center of divine truth, the exclusive claim of the Bible. 

I do not, indeed, deny, and shall presently insist, that authentic traces of this majestic 
truth are to be found elsewhere in old books and old religions; but it is amid a mass of evil 
and ruinous accretions, which grew progressively around it, and but too rapidly stifled' and 
suppressed it. This, then, does not alter the parallel and even more undeniable fact, that it is 
in all these cases traced rather than recorded, recorded rather than taught, and, if taught at all, 
taught with such utter lack of perspicuity, persistency, and authority as to deprive it of all 
motive power, to shut it out from practical religion, and to leave it, through the long and 
weary centuries, in the cold sleep of oblivion or under a storm of overwhelming denial. 

The Koran, as all are aware, has, outside the Hebrew and Christian precinct, appropriated 
the pure tradition on which were built the Bible’s first beginnings, and taught the unity of God, 
with abundant vigor, to a considerable section of mankind, reaching probably at the present 
day to between one and two hundred millions. But the recency of its date places the Koran 
wholly beyond the scope of the present argument; except in so far as the derivative character 
of the doctrine, as standing upon its pages, helps to illustrate the authority of the august source 
from which it proceeded. And it remains true that the vitality of religion, as bound up with 
this doctrine, hung for very many centuries suspended upon the single cord of the Hebrew and 
Christian Scriptures. 

And yet we are still told (I quote from one of the most recent American publications) 
that the Bible belongs essentially to the same family as the remainder of the Eastern books 
reputed to be sacred, that it is one of many revelations contained in them; “ on the whole 
the highest and best that the ancient world produced.” These books, then, it would seem, are 


10 


CRITICISMS REFUTED. 


like children in a class at school; and the Bible, on account of its merits, is promoted to the 
head of the class. 1 

It is not the Bible that produced religion and morals, but religion and morals that 
produced the Bible. 2 It is, then, as much as any other, a properly human composition in its 
matter and in its authority. Yet this same author frankly admits that “the Bible is the parent 
of monotheism in the world, so far as a book can produce it.” 3 And, of course, we agree that 
the monotheism of the written Bible is founded upon a prior communication of divine truth to 
mankind. It is strange, indeed, if the exclusive guardianship of the great articulus stantis aut 
cadentis religionis, which died out in every other country, was a charge only to be acknowl¬ 
edged in a shuffle for precedence! It is supremacy, not precedence, that we ask for the Bible; 
it is contrast, as well as resemblance, that we must feel compelled to insist on. The Bible is 
stamped with specialty of origin, and an immeasurable distance separates it from all com¬ 
petitors. 

It may be right to notice in this place that there is a practice, somewhat usual in the Bible 
and rarely characteristic, I apprehend, of the other ancient books of religion, which pledges the 
personal veracity of the authors to the direct and definite character of the revelation imparted. 4 
It is not adopted in the historical parts of Scripture. But where laws are to be delivered, it is 
largely used by Moses with some difference of degree: commonly “ the Lord said unto Moses”; 
or more particularly, as in Exodus xx, 1, “ and God spake all these words, saying ”; or, as in 
Deuteronomy xxix, 1, “These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded 
Moses to make with the children of Israel.” In the utterances of the prophets, from first to 
last, it is so habitual, with diversities of expression which do not affect the substance, that it is 
needless to cite them in particular, from “the vision of Isaiah,” 5 to “ the burden of Malachi.” 6 
And Saint Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, helps us to comprehend the character of 
inspiration, and its distinctness in his own case from that more general guidance which is given 
to the spiritually minded man, when he writes as follows : first, 7 “ unto the married I command, 
yet not I, but the Lord ”; and then, 8 “ to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” These are assertions 
of a very serious and practical character ; they show us that oftentimes the very words, and not 
merely the general purport, were in question; and they appear, in the subject matter which 
they legitimately embrace, to show the singular earnestness with which the work of the sacred 
writers was pursued; if they do not, indeed, oblige us to make our choice between acknowledging 
inspiration and charging imposture. Let it not, however, be supposed, that while I dwell upon 
the contrast in dignity and title between the Holy Scriptures and the ancient books of the East, 
I intend to speak of those more promiscuous works, or of the religious developments gathered 
round them, with sweeping disrespect. On the contrary, both the religions and the records 
have their value; and I am cognizant of the fact that in the case of the Achaians, or earliest 
historic Greeks, the accepted religion embodied interesting and valuable elements of the old 
traditions preserved for us among the Hebrews, although they had none of the advantage to be 
derived from the support of written or regular records. Both in subject matter and in the 
evidence they afford of drawing from a higher than any human source, they offer to us particu¬ 
lars of very high interest from more than one point of view. 

Sometimes we may recognize, as in the Assyrian or Yedic hymns, approximations, if with 
long intervals unfilled between, to those wonderful developments of the inward life of devotion 
with which the Scriptures, and beyond all other ancient books the Psalms, are so intensely 
charged. These impressions, outside the Scriptures, have a double value: first, in the testimony 
which they render to the principles of piety, and secondly, in the exhibition they afford of the 

1 “The Bible, Its Origin, Growth and Character, and Its Place Among the Sacred Books of the World.” By J. T, 

Sunderland, New York, 1893, p. 249. 2 Ibid, p. 250. 3 Ibid, p. 258. 4 Claimed, however, by Zoroaster. Rawlinson, 

“ Ancient Religions,” p. 95. 0 Isaiah i. 6 Malachi i. 7 1. Corinthians vii, 10. 8 1. Corinthians vii, 12. 



CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN CREEDS COMPARED. 


11 


scarcely measurable superiority of the Hebrew records as patterns and guides in the school of 
religious experience. 

Still more remarkable may be considered the moral teachings of the Chinese philosopher 
Confucius. They were delivered at a very early date, and herein may have lain one of the 
reasons of their purity and elevation. We find the American writer already quoted recording 
with a kind of glee that Confucius taught the golden rule centuries before Christ. 1 A writer by 
no means favorable to negation gives it as his judgment 2 that the attempt of a religious party to 
represent the moral teachings of this great man as standing in close conflict with Christianity is 
much to be deplored. The golden rule, however, does not come up to the full height of the 
“second” commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” But we ought to be 
thankful wherever we find teaching so nearly approaching the truth. Again: the Egyptian 
“ Book of the Dead ” vividly depicts the condition of man after his demise, and the judgment 
to be passed upon him. Although the religion with which this remarkable work was connected 
be immersed in polytheism, and false tradition enters into the delineation of details, yet on the 
other hand it gives a more systematic and particular expression to the great truth of the soul’s 
immortality than we find set forth in the Hebrew books, and it is also remarkably sustained by 
the early records of the Zoroastrian system. All this we accept with lively thankfulness, and, 
as I shall shortly explain, this is to be recommended from a double point of view. 

Take again the case of the Hindoo cosmogony. Deficient as it is in the nobler elements 
preserved for us in the Book of Genesis, and even absurd in its particulars, one of its points may 
be compared to a ray of light shining from the far interior through the mazes of an intermin¬ 
able cavern. Its golden egg is said to have been the home of Brahma before his birth. He lay 
there for a divine year. And a day and night of Brahma’s year are equal to 8,620 millions of 
ordinary years. Is it not within the verge of possibility that this vast extension of time may 
convey to us, even if in gross caricature, some trace of the fact that the pre-human periods of 
cosmic and mundane preparation appear to have extended over vast spaces of time ? 

And finally let us refer to the central truth of the unity of God. In the work which 
I have cited on “ The Jesuits in China ” we find that the Chinese were required by the Con- 
fucian religion to pay reverent worship to Tien. 3 This word Tien was interpreted at Rome to 
mean the heaven. But in China it was held that the emperor had supreme hermeneutic power, 
and he steadily maintained that the phrase meant not heaven but the Lord of Heaven. 4 And 
further it appears that, in all or some of these sacred books, as we ascend toward their oldest 
traditions we come more nearly into view of a primeval monotheism. This was held by Ricci, 
the Jesuit missionary, to be remarkably the case in the ancient religious system of China. 5 So 
likewise in the Gathas of Persia, 6 where religion was degraded in later times not only by the full 
development of dualism, but by the introduction of a multitude of gods and of elemental 
worship. Thus, again we have, in comparing the Persian books with the Hebrew records, the 
double witness: first of concurrence, and secondly of a marked inferiority. But apart alto¬ 
gether from the support given to the early Scriptures by resemblance or contrast of contents, is 
that which accrues from the same sources to their authority. The pure doctrines of religion, 
and especially monotheism, which the speculations of to-day largely represent as the laborious 
attainment effected, after many efforts and through many stages, by the agency of human 
thought, is referred by the traditional belief of Christians to a primeval revelation. This belief 
might be sufficiently sustained, even did the Hebrew Scriptures stand alone in the world. But 
the concurrent voice of many witnesses further serves to raise this contention to the rank of an 
historical and moral certainty. 

1 Sunderland, pp. 26, 27. 2 Rev. A. C. Jenkins, “ The Jesuits in China,” p. 89, also pp. 13, 14. 3 “ Laws of Manon,” 

Book I, Sections 0 and 72, edited by G. Pautheir. Orleans, 1875. 4 “ The Jesuits in China,” London, 1894, pp. 24, 27, first 

edition.’ 6 Ibid, p. 13. 8 Kawlinson, “ Ancient Religions,” p. 97, and “ Ancient Monarchies III,” pp. 104, 105 ; and 

particularly, Haug, “ Essays on the Parsees,” p. 149. 



12 


RACIAL HISTORY OF THE ORIENT. 


III. 

For these Eastern books severally record the most ancient religious traditions of the 
respective countries where they were in vogue. There is no difficulty in accounting for their 
diversities. But how are we to account for their points of agreement; of agreement in very high 
matters; of agreement which in subsequent times, instead of being extended, very largely dis¬ 
appeared ? 

Here the Hebrew hook comes in to our aid; and on this occasion not so much as a 
transcendental fashion, as by supplying a rational and historical solution to an interesting 
problem. 

It was obviously to be expected, if these nations had a common origin, if they were 
distributed over the world from a common center, that the religious traditions which they have 
severally first placed upon record would bear traces of the time when they all had one seat, and 
(if so it had been) one speech. I shall notice later on what linguistic and ethnographical 
research have told and are telling us on these subjects. But the Bible had told it to us long 
before. 

Here again it was among the Hebrews, and among the Hebrews alone, that any available 
and particular record of the primitive condition of mankind was preserved. In the tenth 
chapter of Genesis we are informed how most, if not all, the races among whom the most 
interesting records of ancient religion are preserved, sprang from the same ancestry as the 
Hebrews, and spoke with them a common speech . 1 The fact of a great threefold division is 
established by linguistic study. Many even of the names can be traced, such as those of the 
Medes (so much associated in religion and history with the Persians), the Egyptians, and the 
Assyrians. Testimony from other sources, as to race and language, bring the Indian people 
within our view; and further developments may come to include China. Although the Greeks 
have no sacred books, properly so-called, it is not the less true that in their most ancient 
religious traditions they have transmitted to us many points of marked resemblance to the 
traditions recorded in Scripture. Of all the races in question the Hebrews alone have preserved 
what explains at once the concurrence and the diversities in the materials before us. They, and 
they alone, furnish us with what may be termed a history of primeval man. Does not that 
history, though it has disappeared from other channels, derive much access of credit from the 
confirmation given by the Eastern books in other particulars to the Hebrew Books ? Is it not a 
moral certainty that, when the several races came to place upon record the oldest religious 
traditions which they possessed, the record must have retained, in greater or in less degree, 
material derived from the stock common to them all before the dispersion ? It seems impos¬ 
sible that while one race conserved these traditions in an unbroken line, all others should at 
once have lost all memory of them. It appears, then, that, so far as their common materials are 
concerned, all these books drew from one fountain head; and that was a source where the 
doctrine of primitive and consecutive revelation from God himself to the patriarchal line is 
consistently and plainly declared. Regarded in this light, the singular and precious elements 
found in the Eastern books plainly show that the Hebrew traditions were not the particular 
classic of the Hebrew nation, but the best and most authentic representation of a common 
original, and greatly corroborate the belief that that original was divine. 

The Assyrian tablets have opened to us separate traditions of the Creation and the Flood, 
in forms of very old date, which powerfully reinforce all these considerations. There is no 
doubt of the relationship between the narratives drawn from the tablets and the records of 
Genesis; while a vast moral inferiority in the more precious of the two, that relating to the 


1 Genesis x, xi, 1. 



SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST IMPERFECT 


13 

Creation, further shows how greatly our race had to suffer, in proportion as it was cut off from 
the higher opportunities of learning in the most authentic manner the divine lessons of knowl¬ 
edge as well as of life. 

Everything tends, then, to confirm us in the belief that, in the day when the human race 
was undergoing the first experiences of its infancy, the guiding hand and the audible voice of 
the Universal Father were made freely available to direct its faltering and wayward march. 

I know of no reason, however, why we should not proceed one step farther with respect to 
these sacred books of the East. If there are particular cases in which any one of them brings 
into view, or into clearer view, any matter on which the Hebrew tradition is silent or less clear, 
why should we hesitate to acknowledge that, within these limits, such books are discharging an 
office specifically their own, and intrusted to them by providential wisdom. It might be allow¬ 
able to instance the developments as to a future life in the Egyptian and Persian records. But 
it is one thing to make this avowal; it is quite another to attempt comparing them generally 
with the Bible, while the glaring fact remains that, after every fair allowance, they provide us 
neither with the record of our creation, nor with the hope or the plan of our redemption. That 
is to say, on the matters which are to us of the profoundest interest, they are a blank. 

In considering, however, the relations between the Bible and the older sacred books, we 
should beware of being drawn into captious debate on questions of words. We may be asked 
whether the prerogative we claim for the Bible is a difference in kind, or whether we are content 
with the admission of a superiority in degree. Now, a distinction between these two is in 
common use, and reasonably so. Yet it may be true that this common use is founded more in 
practical good sense and utility than in any abstract and absolute conception of the mind. Let 
us seek for illustrations. Does a good man differ from a bad man, commonly so called, in kind, 
or only in degree ? The general conscience would revolt against the proposition that Alexander 
VI. (Borgia) differed from Savonarola, whom he burned, only in degree. By general consent, 
such differences are spoken of as differences in kind. Again, is the difference between day and 
night a difference of kind, or only of degree ? The general voice would reply that it is of kind. 
Yet, upon examination of the matter, it would be found that the difference was one only of 
degree. And in the former case of the good man and the bad, it might be difficult to avoid 
dispute on behalf of a similar conclusion, at least until a day shall arrive when the tares are 
to be severed from the wheat. 

An explanation may perhaps be sufficiently supplied as follows: Evidently mere differ¬ 
ences of quantity are not always taken, even when enormous, to be differences of kind. Twelve 
hundred, or twelve thousand, millions, evidently differ from a simple dozen of units to an extent 
which even bewilders the thinking faculty, and may well be termed immeasurable. Yet it is at 
once seen that the difference of the two is one only of degree, because there is no change of 
quality and character between the trifling and the enormous numeral. But when quality and 
character, when influence and power, are so altered as to make the operation in human affairs of 
the two things compared fundamentally different and practically opposed, then we reasonably 
decline to describe the difference as if it were of quantity alone. So, in material things, differ¬ 
ences in the percentages of different ingredients may tell upon what we term the essence; and 
we are perfectly warranted, notwithstanding the rules of kinship as to some important points, in 
describing the difference between the Scriptures and these other books as a difference in kind, 
and not only in degree. 

Before finally quitting the relation of the Bible to the Eastern sacred books, I will notice 
another point of much interest, to which attention has been recently called by Dr. Wright. 1 
We depend for our knowledge of the Bible, except in the case of a very few who are Hebrew 
scholars, upon translations. And, evidently, so it must continue to be for an indefinite period, 


1 “Bible Society’s Reporter,” December, 1893, p. 191. 



14 


ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHENTICITY. 


and throughout the world. But what may be held truly wonderful is that the Bible in a trans¬ 
lated form seems not sensibly to lose its power. In Palestine, the Septuagint competed with 
the original Hebrew. In the English tongue, the authorized version bears, and has borne for 
centuries, the character of a powerful and splendid original. It has greatly contributed both to 
mold and to fix the form of the language. From Germany we hear a somewhat similar account 
of Luther’s Bible. In general, even a good translation is like the copy of some great picture. 
It does not readily go home to heart and mind. But who has ever felt, or has ever heard of 
anyone who felt, either in reading the English or in other translations of the Bible, the com¬ 
parative tameness and inefficiency which commonly attach to a change of vehicle between one 
tongue and another ? Is it believed that the Epistles of Saint Paul in English have seriously 
lost by submitting themselves to be represented in a version ? At least it may be said with 
confidence that there are no grander passages in all English prose than some of the passages of 
those translated epistles. Such is the case of the Bible in its foreign dress. I am not com¬ 
petent to pronounce that it loses nothing. But it retains all its power to pierce the thoughts of 
the heart, it still remains sharper than a two-edged sword, it still divides bone and marrow. It 
does its work. We turn to the other Eastern books—what a contrast they present! Certainly 
the same opportunities have not been afforded them of operating through a variety of tongues 
which have been given to the Holy Scriptures. But Confucius and the Koran were translated 
into Latin in the seventeenth century; and in English they have been accessible for more than 
one generation. They each assumed a German dress more than a century ago. The presenta¬ 
tion of these books in the mass to the modern world is, of course, too recent to be dwelt upon. 
But the earlier facts show that, had these books been gifted with any of that energetic vitality 
which belongs to the Bible, a beginning of its manifestation would long ago have been made; 
whereas there is not a sign that any one of them is likely to exercise, beyond its own traditional 
borders, any sensible or widespread influence. They appear to sink into a caput mortuum, a 
dead letter. It is a sublime prerogative of the Holy Bible thus to reverse the curse of Babel. 
They, and they alone, supply the entire family of man with a medium both for their profoundest 
thoughts and for their most vivid sympathies which is alike available for all; and once more, 
in a certain and that no mean sense (so far, that is to say, as the work of language is concerned), 
they make the whole earth to be of one speech. 1 

IV. 

I next proceed to bring together in a few words some instances selected from the signal 
confirmations which the Holy Scriptures have received during the present century, through 
the progress of science and research. Every lover of truth must heartily desire their further 
advances on the simple and paramount ground of allegiance to truth. We may now, from 
reviewing wliat has already happened, entertain rather sanguine anticipations as to the probable 
effect of new discoveries and fuller maturity of speculation in supplying further confirmations 
of the general trustworthiness of the early books of Scripture. 

First. The discovery of the Egyptian monuments, together with Egyptian research in 
other forms, has, as may be seen from the works of Brugsch and other leading students, com¬ 
pletely established the historical truth of the Mosaic record as to the sojourn of the Israelites in 
Egypt, their forced labor there, and their flight therefrom. 

Secondly. Some sixty years back, Dr. Whewell, in his Bridgewater Treatise, spoke with 
favor but with diffidence of the great theory of Laplace known as the nebular or rotary theory. 
During the intervening period it has won extensive acceptance in the scientific world, and 
appears, if not treated as a certainty, at least to hold the field without a present rival. It is 


1 Genesis xi, 1. 



THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE CONFIRMED. 


15 


in singular conformity with the cosmological account given in the first chapter of Genesis, to 
which I shall shortly return. 

Thirdly. It has been pointed out that linguistic study, especially as to the tongues of the 
races principally treated of in the Bible, has traced them to a single root-speech, and to a single 
region, in remarkable correspondence with the statements of the Book of Genesis. 

Fourthly. At the same time, and by a parallel movement, ethnological science has taken 
into view the dispersion and distribution of the human family, recorded in Genesis, chapter x. 
Tracing the relations between the peoples and eponymists there enumerated, and the eventual 
settlement of the great triform continent of Europe, Asia, and Africa, it has found in the 
chapter a striking correspondence with the leading facts of that ethnography. As an historical 
document, the chapter appears to stand without a peer among archaic monuments. 

Fifthly. The discovery, in our own day, of the Samaritan Pentateuch, in actual use among 
certain descendants of that hybrid people, appears to place beyond doubt, not, of course, the 
Mosaic authorship of the books of the Torah as they stand, but their public use in their present 
general form, before the severance, in the tenth century B. C., of the northern from the southern 
kingdom. For the subsequent rivalry and so frequent enmity of the countries would surely 
have led to the exposure of any endeavor in either of them, by priests or others, to falsify or 
substantially change their general tenor. 

Sixthly. It seems to be admitted that recent research in the Holy Land, especially the 
survey by the British Royal Engineers, have confirmed even minutely the statements of the 
Pentateuch as to cities on the east of Jordan, whose existence the survey brought to light. 

Seventhly, and lastly. The records of the Creation and the Flood contained in the Assyr¬ 
ian tablets give strong support to the Biblical narratives. The Creation story indeed loses that 
which in Genesis is its crowning glory, namely the promulgation of the great doctrine of 
Creation. It also has a large admixture of inferior elements; and yet not sufficient to efface 
the undeniable marks of a kindred origin for the two. Both the Assyrian narratives carry 
certain marks of having proceeded from the same source with those of the Bible. And as they 
purport to be of a date approaching four thousand years before the Advent, and belong to a 
people familiar with the practice of regular record, they carry us up to a point nearer to the 
origin of our race than had before been historically attained. Belonging to a series, they have 
greater weight than could have attached to them as isolated narratives floating on the sea of 
time. 

In tne case of the Deluge, there are particulars on which a question may legitimately be 
raised as to the comparative accuracy of the two relations. This is a matter of small, if, indeed, 
of any, consequence in comparison with the confirmation furnished to what we must regard as 
the essential purport of the tradition. That is to say, that since the appearance of man upon 
the earth there has been a great penal judgment inflicted upon the race, in its Babylonian seat 
and perhaps in some wider range, for its sinfulness, by a terrible invasion of water, from which 
only a handful are known or believed to have escaped. The Creation legend, as has been said, 
proclaims itself as having departed sooner, and traveled far more widely, from the precious 
original. 

V. 

It has now become almost a matter of course, in any statement, however cursory, which 
deals with the Scriptures at large, to notice that great chapter, the first chapter of Genesis. It 
was long a favorite subject of attack, and defenders came to be somewhat disheartened and 
intimidated. But there has grown up in some, I trust in many minds, a conviction that this 
chapter is a great fortress of the Scriptures, not an open passage through which they may be 


16 


THE STORY OF GENESIS. 


advantageously assailed. We should, therefore, accept with satisfaction every proper occasion 
for noticing, however briefly, its main characteristics. 

And at the very outset we ought to cast aside the poor and artificial shelter which some 
have sought in broadly distinguishing between spiritual matters and matters physical, in which 
last it is said it was not the design of Scripture to furnish us with an education. Nor is it. 
But spiritual facts may have a physical side, and facts physical a spiritual side; nor can a sharp 
or defensible line be drawn between them. The Ascension, the Resurrection, even the Incarna¬ 
tion of Christ, involved strongly physical elements, and such a plea of defense as I have 
mentioned is one highly dangerous if not fatal to their authority. Even so the announcement 
of Creation in this great chapter, to mention nothing else, besides being a physical fact, is one of 
the greatest and most pregnant moral facts in the whole Bible. Renouncing all subterfuge, 
let us boldly point out the superlative claims and the hardly measurable value of the chapter. 
Each leading point must, however, be dismissed in a few words. 1 

First. The doctrine of Creation, that is the production of matter without any material 
antecedent, is set in the very forefront of the chapter. And here, as in the case of mono¬ 
theism, the treasure of this truth is enshrined exclusively in the Scriptures. The great 
philosophers of old time could not come at it; but the babes and sucklings (for such they 
were in learning) of the Hebrew race had it, through this inestimable chapter, for a house¬ 
hold word. The Psalter, for example, is saturated with it from end to end. The creation 
of man is a moral fact of the very highest importance. It establishes the title of the 
Almighty to rule over us, and to dispose of us in a manner which without this doctrine it 
would be difficult to establish or even to comprehend. It may be added that when once the 
doctrine of Creation has been firmly founded, every such question as those recently raised 
and now afloat concerning the possibility of miracle seems to become trivial and even frivolous. 
What exercise of divine power can we presume to exclude, when we have embraced this 
sublime and wholly transcendental act as an elementary fact of our religion ? 

Secondly. The highest peculiarity of the chapter is, perhaps, this: that it propounds, 
from man and to man, not as speculation or mere opinion, but as authoritative fact, what 
happened in the heavens and the earth before man himself existed. It has been said that 
either this was known by scientific inquiry, or by divine revelation. 2 

There is, indeed, a third alternative, that of hardy and fortunate imposture, but it has 
not been put into the field, and need not be considered. The idea of scientific inquiry is 
absolutely inapplicable to a period thousands of years before men dreamt of examining the 
crust of the earth, to say nothing of its total incongruity with the habits and pursuits of 
the Hebrew race. What genius and culture did not elsewhere attain could not have been 
learned by research in a case where genius and culture for such purposes did not exist. 
And how could science, which presumes all along the anterior existence of man and of the 
material order, have had the means of learning how that material order originally came 
into being ? There was no pou sto, no point of departure from which it could begin to operate. 

Thirdly. As a chapter of practical and religious teaching, scientific completeness forms 
no part of its aim. Its truly rational method is to use such language as shall be most commu¬ 
nicative. Hence it makes no definite allusion to the great Reptile age, which had ceased to be 
represented in nature such as it was presented to primitive man. Hence again, it speaks of the 
moving of the spirit on the waters, where the elements of water had not yet been disentangled 
and combined, but by the word water was conveyed effectually and simply the idea of fluid with 


'The main considerations associated with Genesis i-ii, 4, are more fully treated in my small work, “The Impregnable 
Rock of Holy Scripture” (Revised Edition, 1892). 

2 “ The Bible, Science and Faith,” by the Rev. Mr. Zahm, Professor of Physics in the University of Notre Dame, 
Baltimore, 1894, p. 30. 



THE MOSAIC CHRONOLOGY. 


17 


motion, as distinct from what is stationary and solid. 1 Fishes and birds are associated together, 
but placed in their true order of priority. Both are made anterior to the land population. 
A like orderly succession had been maintained in regard to diffused light, to sea and land, to 
the concentration of the heavenly bodies severally, and to life in its three great forms as 
vegetable, animal, and spiritual. Evolution, the darling of our age, lias the first chapter of 
Genesis for its parent source. 

Fourthly. Referring the origin of man and animals to a common source, the chapter lays 
the foundations of duty to the brute creation, which was recognized in the Mosaic law, but not 
by the ancient world at large. It elevated the conception of duty to the Most High by the 
special parentage assigned (in verses 26, 27) to the human race. It exhibited the fond and 
elaborate care with which, through a long succession of stages, God had prepared for man, as a 
favored child, the home, in which he was set down, and which was declared to be “ very good.” 

Fifthly. Objectors have fondly dwelt on the use of the word day, and its sharp division 
into “ the evening ” and “ the morning,” as totally inapplicable to the vast periods deemed to 
have been required for the operations noted in the chapter. But — 

(1) The main question is, whether the phrase was well adapted to convey to the infant 
mind of man that division of the great work into successive stages which was the main idea 
required to be conveyed, and which, as we see from the subsequent Scriptures, was clearly 
conveyed to and retained by the Hebrew race, and by no other race on earth. The power of 
numeration, even as high as to a thousand, was very imperfectly possessed by all or some races 
of men as late as the time of Homer. In our own day, large numbers are really conventional 
symbols, rather than the vehicles of clear ideas; they simply confuse the mind of a child, and 
in a great degree baffle that of a grown man. 

(2) It is noteworthy that, contrary to our common usage, the evening precedes instead of 
following the morning. It seems to be among the proofs of the commanding influence of this 
chapter that this appears as the Jewish usage both throughout the Scriptures and down to the 
present day. And this form appears to be the one which, according to the theory of rotation, 
is correct. For the first possible marking or notation of time in connection with light would be 
its diminution on the side of the earth turned away from the central solar mass, and the second 
when with an increase of luminosity that side again came to face the (incipient) sun. It would 
be very easy, did space permit, to deal with any other objection which has been taken to the use 
in the Mosaic narrative of a phrase which lias proved its efficacy for its proper purpose by the 
results exhibited in the literature and usages of the Jews. 

(3) If we hold that the days of the great chapter are not periods of twenty-four hours, 
but great chapters of action capable of overlapping, rather than of mere horological time, this 
is not a denial that the several stages might have been accomplished in any number of our 
chronic hours, however small, had it so pleased the Almighty Father. It is because the analogy 
of nature, which teaches us his ordinary method of operation, points to the prolongation of com¬ 
plex and diversified processes over considerable periods of time as being usual, and we prefer the 
construction of the word which is agreeable to such analogy. 

(4) It is a gross error to suppose that the Christian Church has ever tied itself to the 
opinion which treats these days as days of twenty-four hours. In the very first ages of the 
literature of the Church, different teachers and different schools freely and without reproach 
promulgated different interpretations. This has been well shown in America during the present 
year, in the work of Professor Zahm already quoted (chapters ii-iv). So that the question was 
an open one, and never at any period, I believe, has there been an attempt at an authoritative 
construction of the passages. And now let us thankfully review the security of the position 


i One modern writer substitutes for the word water “a surging chaos,” and another “ uncompounded, homogenous, 
gaseous condition”; truly hopeful modes of conveying instruction to the mind of infantine, primeval man. 



18 


THE ORIGIN OF MAN. 


which the Bible, and especially the great chapter, holds in relation to present or possible 
research and its results. 

Suppose for a moment that it were found, or came to be granted in the argumentation of 
science, that the first and lowest forms of life had been evolved from lifeless matter as their 
immediate antecedent. What statement of Holy Scripture would be shaken by the discovery ? 
What would it prove to us, except that there had been given to certain inanimate substances 
the power, when they were brought into certain combinations, of reappearing in some of the 
low forms which live, but live without any of the worthier prerogatives of life ? No conclusion 
would follow for reasonable men, except the perfectly rational conclusion that the Almighty 
had seen fit to endow with certain jtowers in particular circumstances, and to withhold from 
them, in all other circumstances, the material elements which he had created, and for which 
it was surely for him to determine the conditions of existence and of productive power, and 
the sphere and manner of their operation ? 

Or again, if it has been proved (a question on which no opinion need be given) that the 
years allowed by the chronology of Holy Scripture from the Deluge to the Advent, or from the 
Creation to the Deluge, are proved by the facts of prehistoric date, which have been supplied 
through archaeology or otherwise, to be fewer than are required according to sound analogies 
for the occurrences recorded, in what respect need we be discomposed ? It has, or it should have 
been, notorious to us all that the Hebrew text, the translation known as the Septuagint, and the 
Samaritan Pentateuch, supply three different chronologies, as between which there are no 
materials for conclusive or authoritative decision. As they differ so that their figures of time 
cannot all be reconciled, it is plain that no theory of infallibility, however aspiring, will protect 
them from legitimate criticism. And what right have we to assert, should evidence to the 
contrary be produced, that the gap between the longest and the shortest has touched the extreme 
limit which, did we know them, might be supplied by the facts ? As each asserts itself against 
the others, so the actual history might vary from them all, and establish a more extended — 
possibly even a much more extended — boundary. 

Or again if, while Genesis 1 asserts a separate creation of man, science should eventually 
prove that man sprang, by a countless multitude of indefinitely small variations, from a lower, 
and even from the lowest ancestry, the statement of the great chapter would still remain undis¬ 
turbed. For every one of those variations, however minute, is absolutely separate, in the points 
wherein it varies, from what followed and also from what preceded it; is, in fact and in effect, a 
distinct or separate creation. And the fact that the variation is so small that, taken singly, our 
use may be not to reckon it, is nothing whatever to the purpose. For it is the finiteness of our 
faculties which shuts us off by a barrier downward (beyond a certain limit) from the small, as it 
shuts us off by a barrier upward from the great; whereas, for him whose faculties are infinite, 
the small and the great are, like the light and the darkness, “ both alike,” 2 and, if man came 
up by innumerable stages from a low origin to the image of God, it is God only who can say, as 
he has said in other cases, which of those stages may be worthy to be noted with the distinctive 
name of creation, and at what point of the ascent man could first be justly said to exhibit the 
image of God. 

Or, let us open another topic. Let us suppose ourselves confronted with the Quaternary 
or geological man, and challenged to declare whether a being, if only lodged in a form gener¬ 
ally corresponding as to limbs and cranium with our own, is recognized by us as belonging 
to that family of man which was made in the image of God. 3 Our answer is plain. We 
have no means of knowing what the geological man may have been in respect to that vital 
condition which stamps his nature as a nature conformable to the Mosaic description. When 
science supplies us with those means, it will be time enough for us to meet the challenge. We 

1 Genesis i, 26-28. 2 Psalm cxxxix, 12. 3 Genesis i, 26. 



BIBLICAL INACCURACIES. 


19 


shall then know whether he had the spiritual, as well as the animal and intelligent life; 
whether, with circumstantial resemblances, he was apart from us as to essence, or whether we 
are essentially as well as circumstantially one. He may have been only on his way to that 
condition which the words of Scripture so beautifully describe. Certain animals, as we know, 
are endowed with high, and might conceivably be endowed with higher intelligence. Bishop 
Butler treats them as not absolutely beyond the possibility of being raised to a level with 
ourselves. There might be beings with higher endowments than any now enjoyed by any 
creature less elevated than man, and yet who, notwithstanding, might not be capable of attaining 
to the supreme gift which in some sense allies our nature with Deity. For example: Man is 
nowhere more clearly severed from the lower orders of the animal creation than as a tool-making 
animal. A tool-making creature, in the form of a man, would have a position higher than that 
of any known animal; but can we declare it impossible that there might be such a creature, 
who nevertheless should not come within the conditions which would declare him to be one 
created in the image of his maker ? 

I have dwelt most largely on the value of the great chapter for the purpose of establishing 
theistic and Christian faith. But we may gladly bear in mind that it was probably given for 
purposes still higher than those of any controversy or contention, however sacred. While it 
taught primitive man the doctrine of one God, it also powerfully tended to establish him in his 
true filial relation to the great Being it had revealed. He saw around him an abundant pro¬ 
vision made for his subsistence, his comfort, his childlike delights. He learned something of 
what he owed to his Almighty Father. And if the great teachings of this chapter were from 
the first made known to him, they probably gave him all the knowledge which he had faculties 
to receive, while they trained and disciplined his mind for apprehending more. They contained 
not a word to darken the pure atmosphere in which he lived. They exhibited to him the march 
of onward and upward progress, which, so far as our limited faculties instruct us, would seem 
to be the normal condition of man, when launched on the right lines of progress, as the highest 
earthly work of God. From this point of view, the chapter might almost in its simple sub¬ 
limity be termed the Gospel of Paradise. 


YI. 

There lias been a disposition, due, it would appear, rather to zeal than to a prudent estimate 
of the position, which has led many to maintain the absolute accuracy and truth of every word 
contained in the book which we properly term the Sacred Volume. But this, like other works, 
has had to undergo many risks to which other vehicles of human knowledge are subject when in 
the course of transmission from people to people, and from age to age. The earliest traditions 
of all may have been orally handed on. When they passed into writing, and afterward into 
print (which has neutralized many of the previously existing risks), the business of custody and 
of copying and the special necessity of translating a book intended, after a preliminary season, 
for all mankind, were matters such that an absolute immunity from casual errors could only 
have been obtained, in this or any other case, by a standing miracle. But such an intervention 
of miracle none have been hardy enough to assert. The question in dispute, therefore, disap¬ 
pears, and absolute inerrability cannot be maintained. Not that such a provision might not 
have been made, had God in his wisdom so seen fit. It would, however, not have been in 
keeping with the ordinary conditions of the dispensations under which we live; and, both here 
and elsewhere, it is the sufficiency, rather than the absolute mechanical perfection, of the pro¬ 
visions made by God for the attainment of his purposes, on which we have to rely. 

In this case, however, we are not left to the operation of mere presumptions for the deter¬ 
mination of the case. We have to meet the broad fact that there are before us two texts at 
4 


20 


CAUSES OF ERROR IN SCRIPTURE. 


least of the Hebrew Scriptures, which are rivals in authority. The one is in the original 
tongue; but the other,.the translation of the Septuagint, was made from manuscripts far older 
than any of those from which our Hebrew Bible is derived. The differences are sometimes 
irreconcilable. But both authorities are cited, apparently with indifference, by our Lord and 
by his apostles. Where they differ in substance, we cannot suppose the two to be equally 
authentic, or there would be two channels of infallibility instead of one. Here, then, we have 
the existence of some forms of error, smaller or greater, established beyond doubt. Even if an 
explanation could be found for such a conflict, it could not cover the case of the three chronolo¬ 
gies. The principal differences attach to the period between Adam, or the Creation, and the 
emigration of Abram from Haran. For this the Septuagint 1 gives a period of 3,279 years; the 
Hebrew, 2,023; and the Samaritan text, 2,324. It is almost as difficult to place in any other 
category the differences as to certain genealogies. Next to them may be specified numerical 
statements bearing upon their face the highest probability of an error of copyists, commonly 
by exaggeration. The numbers assigned to the children of Israel when they quitted Egypt 2 — 
600,000 3 on foot that were men, besides children — may be quoted as an instance, and others 
could be readily supplied. It seems not impossible that while the introduction of errors in 
numerical statements is peculiarly common and easy (most of all when numerals, as in Hebrew, 
are designated by letters), the particular direction of these errors may be partly due to the bias 
of Jewish patriotism. 

Again, there are instances where no phrase aiming at scientific accuracy would have 
conveyed an intelligible idea, and an expression in itself imperfect supplied the only vehicle 
available for reaching the apprehension of the race in its infancy. Such is the case of Genesis 
i, 2, already noticed. Among the well-known cases are those in which the movement of the 
sun and the immobility of the earth are described, and those which speak of corporal organs in 
connection with the Almighty. 

We may proceed a step further to notice, by way of example, those passages of the Psalms 
which, if literally and grammatically construed, might be held to affirm a real existence for the 
gods of the heathen. For we are told that God “is a judge among gods”; 4 again, “worship 
him, all ye gods ”; 5 and once more, “ thou art exalted far above all gods ”: 6 while we know from 
other Psalms that “ the gods of the heathen are but idols,” “ the work of men’s hands.” 7 

Reasons have already been given why we should decline on behalf of such passages to 
accept, when they will bear it, the unsafe excuse, not always true as matter of dry fact, that 
they refer to such departments of knowledge as lie beyond the scope of the Scripture revelation. 
This idea is capable of a just application, but partially and by no means universally. Let us 
frankly and fearlessly accept the comparatively few inaccuracies of the text as they stand; 
they make no sensible deduction either from the value or from the efficacy of the Bible. It 
is not in these matters that we touch any serious portion of the case. The objector advances his 
principal line of battle when he brings together from the pages of the Old Testament a list of 
acts which, as he thinks, offend the moral sense, but which, in some of the cases, are passed 
without censure, and in others even attract emphatic praise. Such are the sacrifice of Isaac, 
the reception by Rahab of the spies who were hostile to her country, and the slaughter of Sisera 
by Jael; a list to which I will only add the destruction by Jehu of the Baal worshipers. 
I need not touch the cases on which the Bible passes no judgment; and any notice taken here 
of these grave matters must be slight and insufficient. 

I pass by the case of Abraham with these remarks only: that he, who probably had 
learned through the tradition of Enoch that God had modes of removal for his children other 

1 “Smith’s Bible Dictionary,” Art. Chronology. 2 Exodus xii, 37. 8 A number raised to over two millions by 

reckoning those males who could not walk, and also the females. “ Speaker’s Commentary ” in loc. and “ Student’s Bible,” do. 
* Psalm lxxxii, 1. 8 Psalm xcvii, 7. See also Psalms lxxxix, 7 ; xcvi, 4 ; cxxxvi, 3; cxxxviii, 1. 6 Psalm xcvii, 9. 

7 Psalms xcvii, 7 ; cxxxv, 15. 



JAEL AND SISERA. 


21 


than death, may well have believed that some such method would at the critical moment be 
devised for Isaac; and that what is commended in him by the Bible is not the intention to slay 
his own son with his own hand, but 1 the ready assent to the privation lie was to undergo in the 
frustration of the promise that the Messianic line should descend from him. But I will dwell 
upon the case of Jael, because, although she is not commended in the New Testament among 
the witnesses of faith, she is emphatically praised by Deborah the prophetess; and because, on 
the other hand, she is commonly made the subject of the severest and most unqualified censure; 
as though, from the objector’s point of view, the case admitted of no discussion. The swoop 
and haste of these judgments perhaps mainly serve to show with what laxity questions are 
sometimes handled, when the matter at issue is only thought to be the honor of Almighty God. 

It is urged, however, that her conduct displayed the extreme of violence combined with the 
extreme of deceit, and with the profanation of the laws of hospitality, against a man with whom 
she and hers, the house of Heber the Kenite, had no quarrel. 

This, as a bare statement of fact, is mainly true. But, on the other hand, and as regards 
social duty, was not the first social duty of Jael rather to the children of Israel — her family 
being derived from Jethro the father-in-law of Moses — than to Sisera, with Avhoni she had no 
other than a negative relation? Was not Sisera the chief agent and representative of a power 
which was seeking by war to extirpate or enslave the Israelites? Did Jael, or did Sisera, 
create the dilemma ? And what were the alternatives set before her by the act of Sisera ? He 
demanded shelter; he required of her 2 that she should deny his presence in her house, and 
should use against those who were first entitled to her sympathies the instrument of falsehood 
which she turned against him. Surely all the reason of the case was not on the side of this 
demand! What were the alternatives before her if she complied with it ? The victorious 
Israelites were in hot pursuit; and Barak’s path lay by her house. As a lone woman she was 
in no condition to refuse him entry to her house altogether. Had she denied his presence as he 
required, and had her house been searched, her life must obviously have fallen a sacrifice to the 
vengeance of the victors; nay, rather to their just resentment. Had they waived the search, 
and had Sisera in consequence made good his way to Hazor, with what purpose would he have 
gone there ? Certainly, and from his point of view justly, he must have gone there still to fight 
his people’s battle; that is to say, again to carry fire and sword, at the earliest practicable 
moment, through the homes of Israel. Had she no duty to her own flesh and blood ? none to 
the people in whose land she dwelt, and with whom by her husband’s descent she stood in a 
bond of sacred alliance ? She knew, too, that Sisera and his friends were laid under the curse, 
as inhabitants of Canaan, which God had laid upon that people for their wickedness; so that 
except by disobedience to God the Israelites were under a general command to withhold from 
them clemency in war. I do not prosecute this branch of the subject, which sometimes is so 
handled as to involve the assumption that no amount of wickedness could warrant the extinction 
of the nation involved in it. 

Now, I submit that what has been said shows that there were very grave difficulties in this 
case from whatever point of view it may be regarded. I have cited a statement of it wholly 
adverse to Jael. Let me put the case in her favor. There was war—a Avar of extermination. 
When she was compelled to take a side, she rightly took the side of those Avitli whom she had 
special ties. She slew a man, but it Avas a man Avho, more than any other, Avas the life and soul 
of the war against those whom she had made her OAvn people. She slew him in her OAvn house; 
but it was not she avIio brought him there. She sacrificed his life for her folk. He had desired 
her to expose her OAvn life for him. She slew him Avith deceit and falsehood. But these are of 
the essence of stratagem in war, and could the Israelites, or those denizens avIio took their part, 
be expected to refrain from them ? 


Hebrews xi, 17. 


- Judges iv, 17-20. 



92 


DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE. 


I think that, viewing the question with the modern eye, we might say that there was no 
course open to Jael which was in all respects satisfactory. Dr. James Mozley, who stands in the 
first rank of English theology for the present century, has given us a masterly discussion of this 
subject in the sixth of his “ Lectures on the Old Testament.” 1 It was evidently a case of con¬ 
flicting duties. Human life furnishes from day to day abundant minor examples of such cases; 
and there are many of them, for which, with our limited faculties, we can find no satisfactory 
solution. Dr. Mozley observes justly (p. 150) that with admiration there must here be mingled 
a certain repugnance; something rises up within us against the act. The same observation 
applies to-day in the more difficult of the cases where conflict of opposing duties has arisen. 
Difficulty for us only springs up when we contemplate the glowing and unqualified eulogy of 
Deborah. 2 But that eulogy was pronounced under a partial and progressive revelation ; under 
a system where the Almighty, in that earlier stage of human experience, authorized and enjoined 
modes of action toward public enemies such as have never found a sanctioned place under the 
Christian system. In this view, we are little concerned with the case. 

Let us state the upshot in the form least favorable to our estimate of the Bible. The sacred 
book states in bare outline, and at various epochs approves, certain acts in whole or in part irrec¬ 
oncilable, so far as we see, with the law of Christian love. It only indicates, and does not give 
us the advantage of knowing, the contemporary argument in defense. These acts are, in perhaps 
the most difficult case, analogous to acts which are now produced in times of violence, and which, 
being so produced, do not draw down the censure of mankind. Admit that they leave a moral 
difficulty unexplained. It is in a volume which, taken as a whole, bears a testimony, compre¬ 
hensive, wonderful, and without rival, to truth and righteousness. How are we to treat the case? 
I answer by an illustration. Suppose I am reading a work full of algebraic equations, which I 
find to be a sound and masterly book. But at length I arrive at one which I cannot wholly 
solve, cannot wholly comprehend. Should I on this account renounce and condemn the book ? 
No; I should reserve it in hope of n complete solution in the future. This seems to be the 
mode which is dictated alike by reverence and good sense, not only in the case of the Holy 
Bible, but in regard to the mysterious problems which encounter us when our eyes traverse the 
field of human destinies at large. We know the abundant richness of the gift we hold and 
enjoy; as to the small portion of light at present withheld, we contentedly abide our time. 
Nor let our appreciation of Holy Scripture in any respect be cooled by our becoming conscious 
that the light it sheds was less full in old Hebrew days than when the fullness of time had 
come. The slight and hardly perceptible points of difficulty in Holy Writ are doubtless meant, 
like the far more obtrusive difficulties presented by the face of the world and of life, for the trial, 
enlargement, and corroboration of the principle of faith in the minds of believing Christians, 
and thereby for the greater excellence and happiness of man, and the more abundant glory of 
God as redounding from it. 

The Christian apologist need entertain no fear in probing to the very bottom any and all 
objections advanced, on whatever grounds, against the divine inspiration of the Bible. He 
cannot claim a mathematical exactitude for every proposition it contains. This is quite plain 
from what has been already stated, as to matters of fact. Even in the New Testament we find 
that inspired utterances appear to have been subject, at least in certain cases, to critical and 
corrective judgment. Saint Paul informs us that God had appointed various officers in the 
Church, among whom were prophets; and these prophets appear to have ranked near to the 
apostles. 3 He tells us that, in the delivery of what was supplied to them, their free agency was 
not altogether excluded; for, says the apostle, “ the spirits of the prophets are subject to the 
prophets,” 4 and accordingly the utterances delivered by one prophet were not exempt from ani¬ 
madversion by his brethren : for again we have, “ Let the prophets speak two or three, and let 


1 London, 1877. 


2 Judges v, 24-26. 


3 1. Corinthians xii, 28. 


4 1. Corinthians xiv, 32. 




CHARACTER OF ASSAULTS UPON THE BIBLE. 


23 


the other judge” (in the Revised Version, “discern”); that is to say, discriminate, and conse¬ 
quently, if need be, rectify. 1 The notable case of Agabus bears upon this subject. In the name 
of the Holy Ghost he prophesied that if Saint Paul went up to Jerusalem the Jews would bind 
him and deliver him to the Gentiles. 2 Saint Paul did go to Jerusalem. The Jews, in an 
uproar, were about to kill him; but the Romans rescued him by force from their fury, bound 
him with two chains and then, having saved his life, proceeded to the examination of his case. 3 
The substance of the prophecy, as to the danger to Saint Paul’s life, was fully verified: but the 
incidents were materially changed. It may be that, in very early stages of the divine dispensa¬ 
tion, there was no such careful provision as in the Corinthian Church against what we may term 
undigested prophecy. To say that by such provision an element of uncertainty is introduced 
into the divine Word would be a futile criticism. Elements of uncertainty, in the strict mean¬ 
ing of the words, we have already noticed. But we have also seen, bounding, tempering, and 
overruling them all, the radiancy of the Divine Spirit, which has flooded the Holy Scriptures 
with a supply of light that our experience, now reaching over several thousand years, has 
proved to be fully adequate to all the needs of mankind. And this is the rock that may still 
and ever be justly termed impregnable. 


VII. 

After this review, it may now be time to sum up the situation, and also to seek a moment’s 
refreshment in turning from topics more or less polemical to such as are practical. 

The Holy Scriptures have for the last hundred years resembled a beleaguered town, with 
the shouts of the foeman and the roar of his artillery sounding round the walls. It would be 
most unjust, and not less absurd, to apply such a description, or anything approaching it, to a 
reverent criticism, however acute might be its vision, however searching its processes, or what¬ 
ever effect they might have had in disintegrating the sacred volume. For the Bible must, on 
account of its human dress, come under literary treatment, and of that treatment truth, and not 
comfort or quietude, must be the aim. But the penetrating character of the diagnosis pursued 
by a skilled physician detracts nothing from the tenderness of his regard either for the character 
or the feelings of his patient; at least if, besides being a clever, he is also a judicious and right- 
minded man. Now, dividing roughly assailants from defenders, admitting fully, with respect to 
the modern critics that, until they show themselves otherwise, they are to be considered as 
assailants only of the form and not the spirit of the Bible, we may still ask whether their tone 
and temper, speaking generally, has been such, say, for example, in Germany, as the Christian 
community was entitled not only to desire but to demand ? Have they proceeded under the 
influence of sentiment such as would govern one who was endeavoring either to wipe away 
external impurities or to efface spurious manipulations, from some great work of a famous 
artist? Not the mind only, but the finger also, of such a man is guided by tenderness and 
reverence throughout. And, in the case of the Holy Scriptures, to tenderness and reverence 
there should be added an ever-living sense of gratitude for the work which they have performed 
and are performing in the world. Has this been the prevailing and dominating spirit of the 
critical negations of the last half century ? Sweeping judgments, in answer to such a question, 
are not to be delivered without breach of propriety and of charity, except by students both 
widely and accurately versed in the subject matter. A very limited acquaintance with the 
critical literature certainly does not show me, within my own narrow bounds, that the negative 
school carefully eschews precipitancy and levity; that it never seems to betray a desire for the 
negative conclusion rather than the affirmative; that it handles what it deems sick and sore 

o 


1 1. Corinthians xiv, 29. 


2 Acts xxi, 10,11. 


Acts xxi, 30, seq. 



24 


STUDY AND DISSEMINATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 


places as children would deal with them in an afflicted parent; that reverence is the keynote of 
its tone. 1 Glad shall .1 he, if better informed and more competent judges be able to render a 
different and more satisfactory account. 

But be this as it may, and however grave at the present day may be the general assault 
upon belief, with which Bible criticism ought to have nothing in common, the impression made 
upon me by the experience of life is that, wherever religion is alive, the Bible has not lost any 
of its power. I am not now contemplating its office as. a corrector of error, as a tribunal of 
appeal upon soundness of doctrine and of practice, but am considering it entirely with reference 
to wliat may be termed its pastoral office; to that declaration of the Apostle which apprises us 
that all Scripture given by inspiration of God (I am now assuming that the lately revised 
English version has in this passage improved upon the old one) is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 This was to Timothy, who from a 
child had known the Scriptures of the older covenant, which were able to make him “wise 
unto salvation” 3 —that is, unto hearty reception of the faith of Christ. And if the books of the 
Old Testament, laden with the several difficulties of which we hear so much, could accomplish 
so great a work, what must not be the wealth, and what the capabilities, of the Scriptures of the 
New Covenant, with their larger, brighter and more disentangled revelation ? 

I have referred to the vast multiplication of copies of the Sacred Scriptures through Bible 
societies and otherwise. If w r e turn to other portions of the Christian fold than those 
principally concerned with Bible societies, we must not forget to observe that free and full 
circulation of the Holy Scriptures was the rule and practice of the entire Christian Church, 
until in the course of the sixteenth century jealousies due to the controversies of the time 
produced, as it would appear, a change of policy in the Latin Church. I have myself 
purchased in Athens a cheap copy of the tract of Saint Chrysostom, in which he presses upon 
the laity the study of the Scriptures and contests the arguments of those indisposed to forward 
it. This tract was published with the countenance of the Archbishop. I also possess a 
beautiful copy of the Gospels and Acts, in a pocket size, printed at Venice in 1544, and 
another of the same character, also printed at Venice in 1536 ; both of them without note or 
comment. In truth, the amount of diffusion of the sacred volume from the era of the inven¬ 
tion of printing down to the Reformation is even astonishing. They were translated and 
printed in almost every European tongue, excejff the Russian. Germany had no less than 
sixteen complete versions. In France the Versions and Epitomes, taken together, amounted 
to twenty. England lagged deplorably, and had nothing before Tvndale: for the great work 
of Wycliffe was never printed until half of the nineteenth century had gone by. We must 
lioj^e that the appreciation of the teaching and feeding efficacy of the Bible is on the 
increase; and that any jealousies associated either with the grave difficulties of translation, or 
with the possibility that perverse minds may now treat the sacred books as the Epistles of Saint 
Paid were treated in the apostolic age, are being gradually abated. Why should the dutiful 


1 I do not know the latest American literature on the subject of the higher critics; but in Britain we have had two 
important though not bulky publications. 

Sir W. Muir, Principal of Edinburgh University, the highest British authority on all that relates to the “origin” of 
the Mohammedan religion, arguing by analogy, with due circumspection and reserve, from his own comprehensive researches 
to the case of the Book of Deuteronomy, condemns the theory of Wellhausen as against all the evidence, and every likelihood 
of the case. 

A still more direct thrust is administered by Dr. W. L. Baxter, the minister of a charge in St. Andrews. In some very 
concise tracts, bearing the title, “One God, One Sanctuary — Is Wellhausen Right?” he examines with apparently merciless 
care and precision the contention of Wellhausen that the unification of the Hebrew religion at a single center was never heard 
of until the reign of Josiah, and was only after the Exile solidly and permanently established. He not only overthrows the 
doctrine and reduces it to dust, but appears to convict the critic of faults so gross as to suffice for destroying any literary or 
scientific reputation. This publication appeared in April, 1S94. Unless and until it is answered, it seems to exclude any and 
every appeal to Wellhausen as an authority. (December, 1894.) 

2 II. Timothy iii, 1G. 3 II. Timothy iii, 15. 



TEMPTATIONS AND TRIALS OF PUBLIC LIFE. 


25 


perusal of the Bible raise any apprehension on behalf of the Church, or Kingdom of God, 
which is asserted with so much force in important portions of the Old Testament, and set forth, 
or presupposed, in almost every page of the New ? Does it not seem that God has consigned to 
us a double witness in the living voice which proclaims that word throughout the world, and in 
the unalterable record which provides for maintaining the harmony of that living human voice 
with the divine purpose. Not, indeed, that the Bible has either converted the world, or saved 
Christianity from all error and corruption, any more than it has saved Christians from all sin. 
But, of the actual faith and love that subsist in the Christian heart, despite the world, the flesh, 
and the devil, who can doubt that, over and above the corrective action of the Bible, there is a 
vast portion due to the direct influence, most of all perhaps among English-speaking peoples, 
of its words upon hearts and life ? 

It may, perhaps, be excused, if, before concluding, and before touching on the application 
of the Holy Scriptures to the inward life of civilized man at large, I venture, not without diffi¬ 
dence, to offer a few words to the class of which I have been a member for more than three 
score continuous years; the class engaged in political employment, and invested with so consid¬ 
erable a power in governing the affairs, and in shaping the destinies, of mankind. In my own 
country I have observed that those who form this class have fallen under the influence of the 
negative or agnostic spirit of the day in a much smaller degree, than have some other classes. 
And, indeed, widening the scope of this observation, I would say, that the descriptions of 
persons who are habitually conversant with human motive, conduct, and concerns, are very 
much less borne down by scepticism than specialists of various kinds and those whose pursuits 
have associated them with the literature of fancy, with abstract speculation, or with the study, 
history, and framework of inanimate nature. Bo far, they are indeed happy in their lot. They 
are also to be congratulated on this, that the good they do has the privilege, as their evil deeds 
have the misfortune, of operating at once on the character, condition, and prospects, not of 
individuals only, but of large masses of their fellow creatures. They also enjoy a very great 
advantage, which, perhaps, they do not always duly appreciate, in the free and active, even if 
sometimes licentious, comments incessantly offered by the press and the public on their pro¬ 
ceedings. More might be added in the same strain; but I forbear. Still, the distinctive 
features of their profession are not all of this rosy or favorable color. They are under peculiar 
temptations, not only to judge with undue severity the actions, but also to misconstrue and 
suspect the motives of those with whom they are in conflict or in contact. Both in self-defense 
and in the prosecution of their aims, which we may suppose to be generally lawful, they are 
open, in the choice of means, without any visible deviation from personal honor, to tamper in a 
thousand ways with their own essential integrity. Lastly, and all the more in proportion as 
they are men of reality and executive strength, they are liable, from the 'absorbing interest of 
their pursuit, and the imperious and, so to speak, domineering nature of its demands upon their 
faculties, to be reduced to a state of mental exhaustion, which, far more subtly than the mere 
want of leisure, deprives them of the mental energy necessary in order to discharge other 
difficult duties, or to face, and treat with searching judgment, complex or ensnaring problems 
or laborious inquiries. 

It would appear, then, that they are called to a high but dangerous vocation, abounding in 
opportunities on the one hand and dangers on the other. The principle of probation, which 
applies to all men, has for them an application altogether peculiar, and they, even more than 
members of society in general, require to drink of that water, which whosoever drinketh of, he 
shall never thirst again. 1 The force of all these considerations is enhanced by the unequivocal 
tendency of the present, and probably, also, the coming time, both to multiply the functions of 
government and to carry them into regions formerly reserved to the understanding and 


John iv, 14. 


26 


THE SCRIPTURES THE SOLACE OF MANKIND. 


conscience of tlie individual; so that their risks are greatly enhanced together with their 
rewards for fruitfulness in well doing. The alternative opened for them by the choice between 
good and evil is one of tremendous moment. True it is, that the New Testament deals in but 
scanty bulk with the specialties of their profession ; but also true, that it sheds for their benefit 
a whole flood of light on the virtues of humility, charity, justice, and moral courage, without 
which their profession is a snare, and promises to them in its earnest and, if possible, systematic 
perusal the richest results of a happy experience. 

“ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” As they have 
lived and wrought, so they will live and work. From the teacher’s chair and from the 
pastor’s pulpit; in the humblest hymn that ever mounted to the ear of God from beneath 
a cottage roof, and in the rich, melodious choir of the noblest cathedral, “their sound is 
gone out into all lands and their words into the ends of the world.” 1 Nor here alone but 
in a thousand silent and unsuspected forms will they unweariedly prosecute their holy office. 
Who doubts that, times without number, particular portions of Scripture find their way to 
the human soul as if embassies from on high, each with its own commission of comfort, of 
guidance, or of warning? What crisis, what trouble, what perplexity of life has failed or 
can fail to draw from this inexhaustible treasure-house its proper supply? What profession, 
what position is not daily and hourly enriched by these words which repetition never weakens, 
which carry with them now, as in the days of their first utterance, the freshness of youth and 
immortality? When the solitary student opens all his heart to drink them in, they will 
reward his toil. And in forms yet more hidden and withdrawn, in the retirement of the 
chamber, in the stillness of the night season, upon the bed of sickness, and in the face of 
death, the Bible will be there, its several words how often winged with their several and' 
special messages, to heal and to soothe, to uplift and uphold, to invigorate and stir. Nay, 
more, perhaps, than this; amid the crowds of the court, or the forum, or the street, or the 
market place, when every thought of every soul seems to be set upon the excitements of 
ambition, or of business, or of pleasure, there too, even there, the still small voice of the 
Holy Bible will be heard, and the soul, aided by some blessed word, may find wings like 
a dove, may flee away and be at rest. 

1 Psalm xix, 4. 

C Cc C'ft'C-v- 

<7 








BOOK I. 


LITERATURE AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


LITERATURE, 

BV 

Prof. A. H. Sayce, 

OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD, ENGLAND. 


MANUSCRIPTS, 


BY / 

Rev. Samuel Ives Curtiss, L>. D. 

PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION. 


CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 



• 

































BOOK I. 


LITERATURE AND MANUSCRIPT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


LITERATURE, BY PROF. A. H. SAYCE. 

I. 

TTISTORY is usually defined as the record of the past actions of mankind. But the 
-L-l- definition is either too wide or too narrow. It is too wide, because it is the actions of 
civilized man only that come within the range of the historian. Uncivilized man has left 
behind him no chronicle of his deeds. The stone weapon or the unbaked potsherd may tell us 
how he lived, and the shape of his skull may determine his kinship in race, but of his history, 
in any sense which the term can properly bear, they can tell us nothing. The definition, again, 
is too narrow, in that history ought to be something more than a mere record of human actions. 
It ought to aim at showing how these actions have sprung one out of the other, what were the 
motives which underlay them, and what is the influence that they have had upon the world. 
It ought further to reproduce as in a picture the social life of a civilized community, and above 
all the religious feelings and beliefs which have animated it. History, in short, is not only 
a record of the past actions of civilized man ; it is also a picture of civilized man himself. But 
it is civilized man, not as a single individual, but as part of a state or a community; and the 
actions it describes, the life it depicts, are the common actions and common life of a civilized 
body of men. 

There are, however, various modes of writing history. A history may be either a mere 
chronicle of past events arranged in a chronological order, or it may attempt to show the 
necessary sequence and inner connection of these events and to find, as it were, a single thread 
running through them all, or finally it may dwell more on the social forces that have brought 
the events about than upon the events themselves. One historian may be more interested in 
the wars and the foreign relations of a nation than with the development of the people that 
compose it, while another may consider the external politics of a state of comparatively small 
importance and concentrate his attention to the social life that has existed within it. Or again 
a writer may make universal history his object rather than the history of particular nations, 
and marshal his facts with a view to their bearing on the general progress of civilization ; or he 
may use history as a means of illustrating and enforcing some theory or doctrine, the events of 
the past being valuable to him only in so far as they seem to verify his views. 

Few historians, indeed, are altogether free from the charge of suiting the facts of history 
to a preconceived theory. The first requisite of a historian is that he should be sympathetic, 
able to realize the life of the past and to sympathize with those who led it, and this almost 
necessarily compels him to take sides. The absolutely impartial historian is a man who keeps 
his feelings and sympathies in check, who holds his judgment in suspense, and regards every 
thing in “ the dry light ” of intellect. But we are emotional as well as intellectual beings, and 
the “ impartial ” historian is therefore apt to be dull. He does not carry us along with him in 
his pictures of the past; they have no life in them, and the men he describes are mere names or 
abstractions inhabiting a world that is not our own. Grote’s “History of Greece,” written 




BO 


COMPARATIVE VALUE OF HISTORY. 


as it was to defend the author’s theories of democracy, has wholly superseded the more intel¬ 
lectually accurate and sober-minded “ History,” of Thirlwall. Grote compels us to take sides 
for or against his heroes, and in so doing to realize the scenes and actions he describes. 

Moreover, history which is absolutely “ impartial ” is likely to present us only with the 
dry bones of the past, and thus to fail of its real end and object. History in the true sense of 
the word must be a good deal more than dry bones; the skeleton must be clothed with flesh 
before it can represent in any real manner the past actions of mankind. A “ colorless ” narra¬ 
tive may be all very well in criticism, but it is like a beautiful landscape in a thick fog. 
History deals with the lives and actions of living men, and unless it can make them instinct 
with life we shall get but little profit out of it. 

It is not needful that the historian should always be conscious of the bias with which his 
history is written, of the theory and doctrine which underlie it. It may be that what German 
writers call the “ tendency ” of his work is unrecognized even by himself. At other times the 
work may be written with a full and deliberate consciousness of the moral to which it points. 
The author may set out with the intention of showing how history, when rightly interpreted, is 
a parable for our instruction, and how its lessons agree with the doctrines he wishes to inculcate. 
Such a use of history varies in degree from the discreetly veiled purpose of Gibbon to trace in 
the fall of the Roman empire the effects of Christianity down to the employment of the 
parable, where a fact of history may be taken to convey an ethical or religious lesson. The 
Jews of the Talmudic period specially delighted in employing history, or supposed history, in 
this way. In their hands what was termed Haggadah underwent a great development. 
History was transmuted into homiletic teaching, with the inevitable result that little care was 
taken as to whether the history were true or false. For homiletic purposes a legend was as 
serviceable as a narrative of actual facts — perhaps even more serviceable. It was not as 
history, but as a vehicle for conveying religious and moral truth, that the story was valuable, 
and so long, therefore, as religious and moral truth was conveyed, it mattered little whether it 
were also an exact relation of fact. 

II. 

This brings us to the question of the truth of history. Nowadays everybody allows that 
history ought to be a true record of facts, and that if it is untrustworthy it should not be 
regarded as history at all. The chief object which historical criticism has set before itself is to 
determine what portions of the history which has come down to us we may believe and what 
we ought to reject, and whether the documents in which the history is embodied are worthy of 
credit or not. An ancient book may be excellent reading, but if the statements contained in it 
are incorrect we cannot regard it as historical. 

But the actual amount of error which is permissible in a historical work is much more 
difficult to settle. No human work can be perfect, much less a work on history. Even to-day 
we have only to read the newspapers in order to see how hard it is to learn the exact truth 
about the occurrences which are taking place, as it were, before our very eyes. It is a common 
exj^erience in courts of law for thoroughly honest witnesses to contradict one another about 
simple matters of fact; how much more difficult must it be to arrive at the exact truth where 
the facts are no longer simple and where the passions and prejudices of numbers of men are 
involved! It is impossible for any historian to be sure that all his facts are correct. He has to 
depend upon human testimony, and human testimony is eminently fallible. Equally impossible 
is it for him to be certain that the inferences and conclusions which he draws from the facts are 
just. Even if the facts themselves are right, they still cannot be the whole of the facts. The 
historical record is necessarily imperfect; we can know it only in part, and the complexion we 
give to it must be imperfect also. 


VERIFICATION OF HISTORY. 31 

It is important to bear this in mind Books have been written of late which seem to 
demand from the historians of the past a mathematical exactitude which the nature of the case 
renders impossible. All that we can require from a historical document is an honest account of 
what was known to the writer of it, and from the historian who makes use of the document a 
similarly honest representation of its statements. So long as the main facts are faithfully nar¬ 
rated we need not trouble ourselves about the accuracy of unimportant details. A document 
may be perfectly trustworthy, even though the critic can detect in it minor errors and inconsist¬ 
encies. The sun does not shine less brightly upon the earth because there are spots upon its 
face. 

Of course, it makes a considerable difference to the credibility of a narrative whether or not 
it was written down at the time when the events recorded in it actually occurred. Written testi¬ 
mony is better than oral testimony, and history when handed down by oral tradition alone is apt 
to become legendary. Where the history of an event has been embodied in contemporaneous 
literature we may feel assured it cannot be very wide of the truth. 

The history of the past, or rather the documents in which that history has been preserved, 
can be verified in various ways. Chief among these ways is archaeological discovery. Time 
after time it has happened that ancient monuments have been found which confirm the state¬ 
ments made in some old record. Our own century has been beyond all others fruitful in such 
verifications. The East — the home of early civilization — has been yielding up its dead, and 
the decipherer has made them speak once more in living tones. First Egypt, then Assyria and 
Babylonia, and lastly the other lands of Western Asia and the iEgean Sea have been revealing 
their buried secrets and bringing a world to light the very memory of which has been well-nigh 
forgotten. The men of Egypt among whom the Israelites sojourned so long, the Assyrian 
monarchs who overthrew the kingdom of Samaria and demanded homage from Judah, the 
Babylonian conqueror who destroyed Jerusalem, can now be known and studied face to face. 
The Egyptian tombs have told us of the daily life and thoughts and beliefs of the subjects of the 
Pharaohs, the clay tablets of Nineveh have proved to be the relics of a richly stocked library, 
and we can read the very words which Nebuchadnezzar caused to be inscribed in honor of his 
god, or in which Cyrus described his conquest of Babylonia. 

For the records of the Old Testament such archaeological discoveries are of inestimable 
value. Hitherto these records have stood alone, or almost alone; there was nothing with which 
to compare them, nothing whereby their statements could be checked or confirmed; and a 
free hand was consequently given to the critic to deal with them as he would. Now all this is 
changed, and one of the first and most important results of the discoveries which have been 
pouring in upon us during the last few years is the proof that Canaan was a land of readers and 
writers long before the Israelites entered it, and that the Mosaic age was one of high literary 
activity. So far as the use of writing is concerned, there is now no longer any reason for 
doubting that the earlier books of the Bible might well have been contemporaneous with the 
events they profess to record. 

It is a long space of years that is covered by the books of the Old Testament—a still longer 
space that is covered by the history they contain. But it is a history through which runs a 
continuous thread of connection, binding its several links into a single chain. It has been said 
by a German thinker that the ultimate result of a philosophy of history is to show how God has 
worked in and upon men, guiding and educating them toward a fuller and truer revelation of 
himself and of his relations to them. If this is the end and object of a philosophy of history, 
then it is a philosophy of history which is to be found in the Old Testament. We are led up 
by it through the Law to the Prophets, and Prophecy dies with the Gospel on its lips. 


32 


ASIATIC CIVILIZATION. 


III. 

The Book of Genesis sets before us the dawn of civilized life. Adam or “ Man ” has come 
to know what is good and what is evil, and must henceforth depend on his newly-gained knowl¬ 
edge in his struggle for existence in the world. Hardly has he left Paradise behind him when 
the arts and sciences take their start, and man learns that if he would rise above the level of the 
brute he must wring from nature her secrets and her bounties with the sweat of the brow. But 
his civilization is external only; his inner being is unaffected by it; and the luxury and 
conveniences with which he has surrounded himself serve merely to lead him farther away from 
his Creator and to give him greater opportunities for crime. “The wickedness of man was 
great in the earth so the flood came and swept it away. From the heights of Ararat a single 
family descended to people once more the purified land of Asia and to hand on the traditions of 
the past. 

It is around Babylon in the plain of Shinar that the records of post-diluvian man first 
gather. The beginnings of a history which was to end with the establishment of the Christian 
Church are on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. Here was the starting-point of the 
civilization and culture which spread through Western Asia and had so powerful an influence, 
first upon the people of Canaan and then upon their Hebrew conquerors. Here, too, the 
Semitic race to which the Hebrews belonged first acquired the elements of art and learning and 
founded the earliest Semitic power the world had seen. 

This art and learning had been the creation of a race which was not Semitic. The 
inventors of the cuneiform system of writing, the builders of the great cities of Babylonia, the 
pioneers of Asiatic civilization were a people who spoke an agglutinative language like that of 
the modern Turks or Finns. They have been called Sumerians and Akkadians by scholars; 
what they called themselves we do not precisely know. But they were the teachers of those 
Semitic tribes who had settled in their neighborhood and who soon exchanged the life of 
shepherds for that of traders and merchants in the large towns. A time came when the Semite 
was predominant in the land, and Sargon of Akkad, in the gray dawn of history, not only 
made himself supreme in Babylonia, but carried his victorious arms to the shores of the 
Mediterranean Sea. The populations of Western Asia were fused into a single empire from the 
mountains of Elam in the east as far as “the land of the Amorites”—or Syria and Palestine 
— in the west. Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon, extended yet farther the limits of his father’s 
kingdom. He marched his armies along the road afterward trodden by Chedorlaomer, and 
subdued “the country of Magan,” the Midian and Sinaitic peninsula of later days. Here the 
Chaldean conqueror found himself confronted by another great civilized power which had 
arisen on the banks of the Nile. The two civilizations met and joined hands together, and 
from henceforth that corner of the globe which has been the scene of the most momentous events 
of biblical history was permeated by the civilizing influences that flowed alike from both. 

But the influence of Babylonia largely exceeded that of Egypt. Shut up within her wall 
of deserts, Egypt was too self-contained to care about spreading her gifts of knowledge and 
culture very widely. Babylonia, on the other hand, naturally looked westward. Its great road 
of commerce ran through Harran—“the high road”—toward the Mediterranean; eastward 
were only the inhospitable mountains of Elam and Kurdistan, with unknown hordes of bar¬ 
barians beyond. Moreover, though the empire of Sargon of Akkad passed away, the memory 
of it was never forgotten. Up to the age of Abraham the kings of Babylonia claimed also to 
he rulers of Palestine. And the claim had a foundation in fact, as is now clear from the cunei¬ 
form tablets which have been found at Tel el-Amarna in Upper Egypt. They prove that the 
influence of Babylonian culture upon Canaan and the rest of Western Asia had been deep and 
lasting. Everywhere the cuneiform system of writing had been adopted, with its cumbrous and 


CALL OF ABRAHAM. 


33 


complicated syllabary; everywhere, too, was the Babylonian language taught and learned, and 
the Babylonian literature studied. Babylonian traditions and beliefs penetrated to the frontiers 
°f Egypt, and the deities of Babylonia were worshiped in the cities of Canaan. The empire 
of Sargon of Akkad, which had been won by force of arms, was succeeded by the more endur¬ 
ing empire of Babylonian civilization and ideas. 

It was in the midst of the civilization and culture of Babylonia that Abraham was born. 
The road he was summoned to traverse to the west had already been traversed by Babylonian 
generals, officials and merchants. Between Ur, his birthplace, and Harran, his half-way resting 
station, there was a special bond of union. Ur was the chief seat of the worship of the 
Babylonian Moon-god; its other chief seat was Harran. The worship of the god had been 
carried to Harran by the Babylonians, and the temple in which it was carried on there had been 
founded by them. In passing to Harran, therefore, the family of the Hebrew patriarch would 
still have found itself in familiar scenes and among its friends. It was not there, accordingly, 
that it was destined to dwell. The nations which should spring from Abraham were to have 
their habitation farther west, farther away from the influences of Babylonian polytheism and 
the allurements of Babylonian life. 

But we must never forget that Babylonia thus forms the background of the history of the 
patriarchs and therewith of Israelitish history. The Ur in which Abraham was born, the 
Harran in which he dwelt for a while, the Canaan in which his body rested, were all alike in 
the possession of the same culture, the same literature, and the same script. The civilization in 
the midst of which he had been brought up met him equally in that distant land of the West 
to which he had gone. Even the language of his boyhood was known to the educated classes 
of the country of his adoption. 

One of the first acts he was called upon to perform in his new home was to help in resisting 
a Babylonian invasion. The acceptance of Babylonian culture did not imply an equally ready 
acceptance of Babylonian rule on the part of the native princes of Canaan. And in quitting 
Ur, Abraham had left behind him his Babylonian citizenship. In Canaan he became as one 
of the Canaanites, fighting their battles for them and paying tithes out of the spoil to the priest- 
king of Jerusalem. 

God’s call had come to Abraham in Harran, but it was not until he had reached the 
Promised Land that a divine covenant was made with him. Now for the first time it was 
declared that Palestine should pass into the hands of that chosen seed of the patriarch in whom 
all the earth would be blessed. The civilization and conquests of Babylonia had prepared the 
way for the announcement of the promise; but a long period of tijne had yet to elapse before 
the promise could be fulfilled. One by one the descendants of Abraham had to be tried and 
sifted, before the one selected line could be finally established; Ishmaelites, Arabs of the South, 
and Edomites might claim kinship with the chosen race, but it was not for them that the divine 
covenant had been made. Had the Israelites been as their kinsfolk there would have been no 
Law and no Prophets, no Jewish Church, no Messianic hope. Modern science teaches us that 
a race improves through a process of natural selection ; so, too, through a process of divine selec¬ 
tion, the Israelitish people were set apart for the work they were intended to fulfill. 


IV. 

It has long been the fashion to speak of Abraham and the other patriarchs as Bedouin 
sheiks. But the comparison gives a wholly wrong idea of what they really were. There are 
Bedouin sheiks, indeed, who spend the larger part of their lives in towns, and are as civilized 
and cultured as the generality of their neighbors. It is not, however, of men like these that the 
writer and reader usually think when they describe Abraham as a “ great Bedouin chief.” It 


34 


RELIGION OF BABYLON 


is rather of the half-civilized nomad, who lives by rapine and the precarious products of his 
flocks, whose natural home is in the desert, and who is free from the restraints of civilized life. 
Such .a conception of the Hebrew patriarchs would be wholly incorrect. They lived, it is true, 
for the most part in tents; they moved from one part of the country to the other; but they were 
in no sense uncivilized wanderers. They were brought up in the very midst of Babylonian 
culture and lived among those who were thoroughly imbued with it. Their home was in 
Canaan or at the court of the Pharaoh, not in the desert among the wild Amalekites. Such 
civilization and culture as were possessed by the inhabitants of Ur and Harran or by the people 
of Canaan they must have possessed also. 

The extent of this civilization and culture we are but just beginning to realize. Long 
before the days of Abraham, Babylonia was a land of libraries and schools, of art and science, 
of law and settled government. A code of morals had been formed and an elaborate religion 
organized by the state. This religion was an amalgamation of the religious beliefs of the older 
Sumerian population and those of their Semitic successors. But the higher and more spiritual 
ideas of the Semite dominated it, and as time went on it came more and more to center round 
the doctrine which saw in the sun the visible symbol of the supreme Baal. Babylon became a 
holy city such as Borne was in the Middle Ages; it was under the control of a high priest, the 
Babylonian state being regarded as a theocracy at the head of which was Bel-Merodach, the god 
of Babylon. The ritual was elaborate and costly; tithes were required to be paid by every 
Babylonian to the temples of his gods, and sacred books existed which may be compared with 
our Bible and Prayer-book. The bible consisted of a collection of hymns to the gods, and pen¬ 
itential psalms, and they were considered so sacred that the mere mispronunciation of a word in 
their public recitation was held to invalidate the ceremony and even incur the anger of heaven. 
The prayer-book also contained the hymns, together with rubrical directions for their use as well 
as for the performance of the sacrifices and offerings and other acts of worship required in the 
daily services. 

We cannot study the religious literature which has been preserved in the cuneiform 
tablets without feeling that the Babylonian was genuinely pious. But he was beset by supersti¬ 
tions of all kinds, and he added gods and goddesses innumerable. Nevertheless, there were 
those who in the midst of the darkness of polytheism were seeking “ the Lord, if haply they 
might feel after him and find him.” Now and again we meet with hymns in which language 
is used that shows how, for the moment, the deity who is addressed was exclusively and alone in 
the writer’s thought, and how near he had come to a perception of the truth. Thus, in a hymn 
which was composed in Ur itself, Abraham’s birthplace, probably long before he was born there, 
the Moon-god is addressed as follows: “Father, long-suffering and full of forgiveness, whose 
hand upholds the life of all mankind! . . . Firstborn, omnipotent, whose heart is 

immensity, and there is none who may fathom it! ... In heaven, who is supreme ? Thou 

alone, thou art supreme! In earth, who is supreme ? Thou alone, thou art supreme ! ” Indeed 
there are indications that a school existed which sought to resolve the numerous deities of Baby¬ 
lonian theology into forms or manifestations of the Sky-god Anu, and in the penitential psalms 
we find expressions which prove that a sense of sin was present to the Babylonian heart. “ O 
Lord,” we read in one of them, “ my sins are many, my transgressions are great! . . . I 

sought for help and none took my hand. I wept and none stood at my side ; I cried aloud and 
there was none that heard me. To my God, the merciful one, I turn myself, I utter my prayer. 

. . . O my God, seven times seven are my transgressions : forgive my sins! ” 

Such was the religious atmosphere in which the boyhood of the Hebrew patriarch must 
have been passed. On the one side gross superstition, idolatry and polytheism, but on the other 
side glimpses of a purer light and of a more spiritual faith. Babylonian culture was feeling its 
way toward monotheism and a recognition that true religion must be spiritual and not material. 


EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION AND CONQUESTS. 


35 


It already acknowledged the divine government of the world, the existence of a creator and a 
benefactor of men. Nay, more even than this; there are hymns in which Bel-Merodach is 
spoken of as “ the compassionate god, who raises the dead to life.” Here, then, in these 
religious aspirations of Babylonian culture, lay the preparation for God’s revelation of himself 
to Abraham. In the culture of Chaldea we must see the educating forces which molded the 
mind of the Hebrew patriarch. It was only when their work had been accomplished and the 
new revelation had been made to Abraham that he was bidden to tear himself away from his 
older associations and remove to a land and a mode of life where they were the less likely to 
influence him. 

V. 

The patriarchal age of Hebrew history ends with the migration of Jacob and his sons into 
Egypt. It was now time for the other great civilizing power of the ancient East to exercise its 
influence upon the chosen people. But this influence was negative rather than positive. Egypt 
was the furnace of trial through which Israel had to pass before it was fitted for its future part 
in the world; the house of bondage which should make it value and cherish the blessings of 
freedom. Egyptian luxury and Egyptian idolatry were henceforth associated with the idea 
of slavery ; it was rarely, if ever, that they henceforth had attractions for the Israelitish people. 
Toward Egyptian culture and religion the feeling of the Israelites was that of antagonism, of 
repulsion rather than of the reverse. Doubtless Moses had been the adopted son of an 
Egyptian princess and was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, but it was their wisdom that he 
utilized, not their beliefs and practices, their religious customs and social life. How marked, 
for instance, is the contrast between the stern insistence of the Mosaic law upon the duties of 
this life and the continual living for the world to come which characterized Egyptian civiliza¬ 
tion ! With all his light-heartedness, the Egyptian had ever before him the image of death; 
the Mosaic law scarcely looks beyond the rewards and punishments which await the good and 
the evil in this present world. 

Perhaps there was a racial as well as a historical and religious reason for this attitude of 
antagonism between the “ dwellers on the Nile ” and their fugitive bondsmen. Unlike the 
Babylonians, the Egyptians did not belong to the same Semitic race as the Israelites, and 
between Egypt and Asia there had long been feud. The wall of isolation within which Egypt 
had once entrenched herself had long since been broken down, and before Joseph became the 
prime minister of the Pharaoh the valley of the Nile had been overrun and conquered by 
Asiatic invaders. The foreign domination lasted for several centuries. Then came the war of 
independence, and the founder of the eighteenth dynasty succeeded in expelling the last of the 
strangers from the soil of his country. A war of revenge was next carried on against Asia, and 
under Thothmes III. and his successors Canaan became an Egyptian province and the bounda¬ 
ries of the Egyptian empire were pushed as far as the Euphrates. But the conquest of Western 
Asia reacted upon the conquerors. The Pharaohs married Asiatic princesses and became half- 
Asiatic themselves. Amenophis IV., or Khu-n-Aten, eventually surrounded himself with 
Canaanitish and Syrian officials and endeavored to force an Asiatic form of faith upon his 
unwilling subjects. The worship of the Solar Disk, the symbol of the Asiatic Baal, was substi¬ 
tuted for that of the Theban Amon, and the quarrel between the Pharaoh and the Egyptian 
priests grew so acute that Khu-n-Aten deserted the capital of his fathers and built himself a 
new city farther north. It was on the site of this new capital, now known as Tel el-Amarna, 
that the cuneiform tablets were discovered to which allusion has already been made. They 
consist for the most part of letters from the allied princes and Egyptian governors in Asia, and 
show that even at the court of the Pharaoh the language and script of Babylonia were the 
medium of diplomatic intercourse. 

5 


36 


AGE OF THE EXODUS. 


The religious reforms of Khu-n-Aten ended in civil war and the fall of the eighteenth 
dynasty. The Egyptian empire in Asia fell at the same time, though the larger portion of 
Canaan was recovered by the earlier kings of the nineteenth dynasty. Foremost among these 
was Rameses II., whom the discoveries of Mr. Naville at Pithom have shown to have been the 
Pharaoh of the oppression. 

We have learned from the tablets of Tel el-Amarna why “ the new king which knew not 
Joseph” should have dealt so hardly with the Hebrew people. The rise of the nineteenth 
dynasty marks the success of the national uprising against the Asiatic policy of the later kings 
of the eighteenth. The native Egyptians had looked on with smothered indignation while the 
posts about the court had been handed over to the hated foreigner; when the ancient religion 
of the country was proscribed they broke into open revolt. All the old feelings of hostility to 
the Semitic stranger were aroused afresh, and the triumph of the national party meant the 
expulsion of the Asiatic and his religion from the valley of the Nile. Those who remained 
were enslaved or exterminated. 

While Rameses lived there was no hope for the suffering bondsmen. They were kept 
incessantly at work on the cities and buildings with which he filled the land of Egypt during 
his long reign of sixty-seven years. But with his death there came a change. Egypt had to 
stand the shock of an invasion by northern and western nations, and the nineteenth dynasty 
grew weaker every year. The opportunity for escape arrived at last, and the Israelites under 
their leader, Moses, plunged into the desert, there to be formed into a nation and made ready for 
the conquest of Canaan. 

In Egypt they had been in close and intimate contact with one of the most literary of 
peoples. From time immemorial the Egyptian had known how to read and write. The walls 
of his tombs and temples were covered with lines of writing ; even the ornaments he wore and 
the objects of his toilet were inscribed with words and names. At times the cartouches of the 
Pharaohs were stamped upon the mud bricks their bondsmen were bidden to mold, and the 
rocks and monuments that still remain are thick with the scrawls of passers-by. The contrast 
between Nubia and Egypt in this respect is striking; go where you will in Egypt inscriptions 
stare you in the face; in Nubia, on the other hand, they are few and far between. The scribe 
was the honored of all men ; the children of the Pharaoh did not disdain to adopt the profession, 
and it led, as in modern China, to the highest offices of state. Schools and teachers must have 
been multiplied all over the land, and the papyri which have been left to us prove how large 
and how ancient must have been the literature of the country in the truest sense of the word. 

The land toward which the Israelitish fugitives bent their steps was equally a land of 
literature. The tablets of Tel el-Amarna have told us so. There, too, in Canaan, writers and 
readers abounded; there, too, were schools and libraries, though the script was that of Baby¬ 
lonia and not of Egypt, and the literary language was a foreign one. Even in the desert itself, 
if the latest researches of Glaser and Hommel are justified, they could not have been altogether 
beyond that literary atmosphere which in the age of the Exodus enveloped the whole of 
Western Asia. Alphabetic writing in the Arabian peninsula seems to be older than the days of 
Moses. There was a cultured kingdom in the south whose kings claimed sway as far as the 
borders of Egypt and Edom, and who held control over the great caravan road of trade. Their 
inscriptions have been found near Teima in the northwest, not very far distant from the region 
in which some part of the wanderings of the Israelites was passed. 

But even if the views of Glaser and Hommel turn out to be incorrect, it would make no 
difference to the general fact that Moses and his followers lived in a literary age and in the 
very midst of literary nations. That they should have been unacquainted with the art of writ¬ 
ing would have been nothing short of a miracle. How could they alone have been slumbering, 
while the peoples around them were all awake? We must, accordingly, regard the influence of 



TEL-EL-AMARNA TABLET. 






















38 


UNITY OF THE JEWISH NATION. 


Egypt upon Israel as not entirely negative. It had also its positive side. The “ wisdom of the 
Egyptians ” was preeminently a literary wisdom, and the Israelites, when they fled from Egypt, 
must have carried away with them a knowledge of writing and the conception of a literature. 

VI. 

The desert was the cradle of the Mosaic law. There the fugitive slaves of Pharaoh were 
organized into a nation, and for the first time were made to understand that they were hence¬ 
forth to be the chosen people of the Lord. The covenant made with the patriarchs now found 
its realization in the covenant made with the nation that had sprung from them. The indi¬ 
vidual had given place to the community, and the history of the Old Testament enters upon a 
new stage. From henceforth the individual falls into the background ; he is merely the repre¬ 
sentative of the people; and God’s dealings are with the people rather than with the single 
man. The patriarchal age has disappeared forever; the great figures that henceforth cross the 
stage of Hebrew history — Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David — are but the leaders and representa¬ 
tives of the community behind them. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob has become 
a national God, and the patriarchal household has developed into a theocracy. 

It is always so in history. It begins with individuals; it ends with nations and communi¬ 
ties. Not that “ the great man,” as he is termed, is ever dispensed with; but the social forces 
upon which he works grow wider and more complicated; he is more largely acted upon by 
them, and his own influence is more difficult to determine. He no longer stands forth like an 
isolated peak; there are innumerable mountain ranges behind him as far as the eye can reach, 
and the historian must take account of them all. 

Among the many lessons learned in the desert, perhaps the chiefest was that Israel was 
one united nation, a peculiar people singled out of all mankind for the revelation of the unity 
of God. Other nations were divided into principalities and smaller states, each with its own 
worship and its own supreme deity, and when these principalities and states came to be united 
together, the union of their several worships and divinities produced those polytheistic state- 
religions which we find in Egypt, in Canaan, or in Babylonia. But the tribes of Israel were 
formed into a single whole, with a common law, a common worship, and a common belief in the 
one supreme God, before they had settled in the Promised Land and could there become a state. 
The theocracy already existed while they were still but a wandering caravan, necessarily subject 
to the control and discipline of a single leader. When at last they entered Canaan and settled 
in the country which had been promised to their fathers they were already a corporate body, 
with a definite organization and a definite faith. Israel was no amalgamation of townships and 
petty states, but an organized community whose tribes recognized the same priesthood, the same 
laws, and the same beliefs. 

The desert, consequently, made Israel not only a nation, but an undivided nation. And 
with the feeling of national unity came a confidence in its own powers. The slaves of Pharaoh, 
who could not be led along the way of the Philistines lest they “ should see war,” soon became 
those hardy warriors who first defeated and scattered the Amalekite Bedouin and then invaded 
the cities of Canaan. Along with freedom and discipline had come strength and the power of 
united action. 

But it needed time to prepare the people for their appointed task. And meanwhile the 
way was being made ready in Canaan itself. The wars of Raineses II. against the Hittites had 
carried ruin and devastation through the Canaanitish cities. The Hittites who had descended 
from the mountains of the north in the closing days of the eighteenth dynasty had taken secure 
possession of Syria and had established themselves at Kadesh on the Orontes, in the land of the 
Amorites, not far from the future frontier of Palestine. The campaigns of Rameses II. and his 


THE JUDGES AND THE MONARCHY. 


39 


father checked their further advance. But the struggle between the two powers lasted for many 
years, and though the Egyptian Pharaoh conquered Canaan and even extended his influence 
to the eastern side of the Jordan, it must have been an exhausted province which he finally 
possessed. In the troubles which followed the reign of Raineses, Canaan was again lost to 
Egypt and never subsequently recovered. But other invaders were at hand. When Rameses 
III., of the nineteenth dynasty, was on the Egyptian throne, Palestine was overrun by 
hordes of barbarians, from the Aegean Sea and the coasts of Asia Minor, who swarmed south¬ 
ward both by sea and land. Some of them remained permanently in the country, the southern 
part of which was afterward invaded by the Egyptian Pharaoh after his complete victory over 
the northern foe. 

But the work of destruction begun by the wars of Rameses II. must have been completed 
by the invaders from the north. The inhabitants of Canaan could have had but little strength 
to resist the Israelitish invasion, when Joshua at last led the tribes across the Jordan. Little 
by little the larger part of the country was subdued. 

The Book of Judges, however, makes it clear that the work of conquest was not a rapid 
one. Indeed, it was not until the age of the kings that some of the most important of the 
Canaanitish cities fell into Israelitish hands. Jerusalem, the future capital of Judah, was one 
of the early conquests of David, and it was not until the reign of Solomon that Gezer, in spite 
of its strategical value, was given by the Egyptian Pharaoh to the Hebrew king. The age of 
the Judges was an age of fighting and disorder. The civilization of Canaan retrograded, and 
each man did that which was right in his own eyes. Invasion followed upon invasion, servitude 
upon servitude, so that “ the highways were unoccupied ” and the Israelitish warriors deprived 
of their arms. The disorganization of the tribes seemed at times complete; the law of Moses 
was forgotten and “ they chose new gods.” Nevertheless, with all this disorder and disorgani¬ 
zation, Israel never wholly forgot the lesson it had learned in the wilderness. It never wholly 
lost the consciousness that it was one people under one national God, and in moments of distress 
it realized the fact. Time after time the tribes rallied round some patriotic leader, and 
acknowledged both their own unity and their common faith. The state of Canaan after the 
Israelitish conquest is paralleled by the state of Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. In 
Europe, too, there were war and discord, loss of culture and political disorganization, and in 
Europe, also, there was one stable and unifying element — the Christian Church — which 
eventually brought order out of chaos, and peace out of anarchy. 

But it was manifest that the Hebrew people were not yet fitted for a purely theocratic 
government. They required a visible head, who should lead them in war against their enemies 
and decide their quarrels at home. The epoch of the Judges was fast passing into an epoch of 
disintegration. The Philistines had overrun all the south of Palestine, and now held the passes 
which commanded the approach to the north. It seemed as if the name of Israel was about to 
be wiped out, all its previous training to end in nothing. When the ark was captured by the 
enemy, all hope seemed to be gone. 

The Judges had failed. A strong hand was needed to resist the hostile forces that were 
threatening to destroy Israel from without and to harmonize the jarring elements that were 
threatening to destroy it from within. Saul was elected king, and Samuel, the last of the 
Judges, became the first of the Prophets. The assertion of individual right and influence 
which had manifested itself in the stormy scenes of the period of the Judges was now disci¬ 
plined into a better and more spiritual path. Though it was the pressure of hostile attack 
which had forced Israel to cry out for a king, yet underneath that cry lay an instinctive feeling 
that only so could Israel be molded into a single nation, animated by a common spirit and 
seekino- a common end. The unity that had been realized in the desert in the person of the 
lawgiver could only be realized in Canaan in the person of a king. 


40 


RISE AND FALL OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. 


With the rise of the royal power Israel once more comes into contact with the great nations 
of the ancient world. David created an empire which reached to the Euphrates, and Solomon 
made alliance with the Pharaoh of Egypt. The fall of the empire brought with it the 
foundation of the kingdom of Damascus and was followed by the revolt of the ten tribes. The 
revolt proved how useless was the attempt to unify Israel by political means only; the real bond 
of unity was religious, not political. But several centuries were needed for the recognition of 
this truth, and when at last it was recognized, the Israel which received it was but a fragment 
of the political Israel of the past. 

The wars and alliances with Damascus led to the interference of Assyria in the affairs of 
Samaria and Judah. Assyria had now taken the place once occupied in Western Asia by 
Babylonia. It was the leading state of the civilized Asiatic world. Its monarchs claimed to 
he the ministers of their god Assur, sent forth by him to punish the disobedient and to compel 
all mankind to acknowledge his supremacy. From the ninth century onward their campaigns 
led them to the west. Here, rather than among the rude mountaineers of the east and north, 
was booty to be gained, and the roads of trade opened up for the merchants of Nineveh. 
Damascus stood between them and the shores of the Mediterranean, and its kings had conse¬ 
quently to bear the brunt of their attacks. 

Already Jehu had paid tribute to the great king of Assyria, and the Israelitish envoys are 
depicted on the obelisk of black marble which now stands in the British Museum. But it was 
not until the rise of the second Assyrian empire under Tiglath-Pileser III., in B. C. 747, that 
the entire destruction of Syrian and Palestinian political independence was attempted. Tiglath- 
Pileser inaugurated a new system of policy which was ably carried out by himself and his suc¬ 
cessors. He set himself to form a great empire which should include all the countries of the 
civilized world, as well as Egypt, and of which the Assyrian king should be the absolute head. 
It was to be a great corporate body, with a highly centralized government, the like of which the 
world had never seen before. In order to carry out his plans, Tiglath-Pileser created a standing 
army, as perfectly equipped and disciplined as the age allowed it to be. It soon became an 
irresistible instrument of conquest; none could stand against the veterans of Assyria and the 
skilled generals who commanded them. One by one the states and cities of Western Asia 
fell under the iron power of Assyria; Assyrian savages, accountable to the king, were placed 
over them, and all spirit of disaffection or patriotism in the conquered populations was sought to 
be crushed by their transportation to distant parts of the empire. Assyrian garrisons and 
colonists watched over the fidelity of such of the older inhabitants as were permitted to remain 
in their homes, and an army of Assyrian officials managed the affairs of the mighty empire and 
constituted a check upon the military commanders. 

Such was the power which destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel and threatened to 
overthrow that of Judah. But the kingdom of Judah had not yet accomplished its mission. 
Sennacherib’s host dashed in vain against the walls of Jerusalem, and the danger which had 
threatened it passed away. Hezekiah and his people were saved, and when Manasseh subse¬ 
quently returned to allegiance to Assyria a wiser and more conciliatory ruler than Sennacherib 
was on the throne of Nineveh, and there was no longer any desire to blot out the Jewish name. 

Assyria fell as suddenly as it had risen to power, and for a few short years the possession of 
Syria and Palestine was disputed between Egypt and Babylonia. Judah suffered in the conflict 
between the two powers, and when Babylonia prevailed its kings still deluded themselves with 
the hope of preserving their independence by playing off the one power against the other. The 
hope was futile, and it was not long before Jerusalem was captured and overthrown, the temple 
burned, the priests and people carried into exile, and the kingdom of David extinct. 

But the work of the monarchy was done. That portion of the Israelitish people which 
made up the kingdom of Judah had been forced into a single community. Four centuries of 


ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPHECY. 


41 


common national life under the line of David had made them a united whole. Little by little 
the divisions — religious, political and social — which had existed among them had been 
smoothed away. Judah, Simeon, Benjamin, and Levi had become a homogeneous state, with 
a single center and a single head. The religious worship which had been carried on at the 
various “high places” of the country, the ancient centers of religious veneration, had been 
suppressed, and concentrated once for all in the temple at Jerusalem. The “ holy city ” of 
Jerusalem had, as it were, absorbed all the other holy places which had once existed in southern 
Palestine. And with this concentration of worship went a realization of the unity of the 
national God and of the relation of the nation toward him such as had never been possible 
before. Judah had become a self-contained unity, both in religion and in politics. 


YU. 

Side by side with this religious and political concentration, and, in fact, under the shadow 
and protection of it, prophecy grew up and extended its influence. As we have seen, the 
creation of the royal power was the signal for the judge to pass into the prophet. Already in 
the reigns of the first kings of Israel we find the prophet taking his place at the side of the 
monarch as guide and counselor, friend and critic. It is he to whom the king appeals for 
counsel in moments of political difficulty; it is he who alone can venture to rebuke the 
sovereign, and who can make and unmake kings. It is he, lastly, who becomes the chronicler 
of the kingdom, and the people’s schoolmaster. He is, in fact, the externalized conscience of 
the prince, whose autocracy would otherwise be checked only by revolt and revolution, the 
representative alike of the Lord and of the Lord’s people. 

In prophecy, however, as in all things else, there was development and progress. As time 
went on, its voice grew clearer and more definite. The morality that it preached became more 
catholic and more spiritual. Its vision ceased to be confined within the narrow horizon of a 
single nation, and began to embrace all mankind. And with enlargement of its vision came 
also an enlargement in its ideas of time. It was no longer the immediate present or the 
immediate future which it contemplated, but the far-reaching ages that were yet to come. The 
appeal to the sight made way for an appeal to the ear and the mind. The sign and wonder 
were superseded by the still small voice which was indeed the voice of God. The earthly line 
and throne of David faded away into the larger lineaments of the kingdom of Christ. 

It was only in Judah and in the later days of the Jewish monarchy that Hebrew prophecy 
thus attained the full realization of its mission. Not until the Jewish nation had learnt to feel 
that they were one people, separate from all others, were they ready to receive the final 
revelation of prophecy. It was needful that they should first gather round the earthly 
Jerusalem and the temple of Solomon, with its priesthood and its services, before they could 
be taught that all these were, after all, but types and symbols, and that the stately cult of the 
Jewish ritual was but a veil which hid behind it the more spiritual cult of the heart. If the law 
was a schoolmaster to bring the world to Christ, the Jewish monarchy was equally the school¬ 
master which enabled prophecy to deliver its full message to an understanding people. 

And yet it was a message hard to understand. It was a new gospel for men to hear. A 
high code of morals had been preached in Egypt from the earliest times, and the soul of the 
dead man was required to satisfy the stern judges of the other world that he had fed the 
hungry, clothed the naked, and wronged no man. But this code of morals was supplementary 
only to the external forms of religion. The slightest departure from the prescribed formula of 
the religious ceremonies would have been more fatal than inability to answer the judges of the 
dead, and a belief in the dogmas of the orthodox faith was more necessary than the most perfect 
performance of the moral law. In Assyria and Babylonia, again, the correct fulfillment of the 


42 


THE BABYLONIAN EXILE. 


requirements of the ritual constituted the very essence of religion. Assur of Nineveh and Bel- 
Merodach of Babylon were local divinities and had therefore to be treated like earthly kings. 
What they saw and what they demanded was mere outward propriety of conduct and worship; 
the worship of the heart was an almost meaningless phrase. We look in vain elsewhere than in 
Israel for that keynote of prophecy which finds its expression in the first chapter of the Book of 
Isaiah. The God of Israel required a pure heart and a holy life, not a ceaseless round of sacri¬ 
fices and rites or the most gorgeous temple that man had ever reared. 

The message of prophecy was enforced by national suffering. When Isaiah delivered it, 
there were few who could as yet understand what it meant. But the century which followed 
brought with it many bitter experiences, and imprinted its lesson on the minds of the better 
portion of the Jewish people. Doubtless the majority still clung to their old' localizing faith, 
and believed up to the last that their God would never suffer his temple to fall into the 
hands of the foe. There were many, however, who had come to know that true and vital 
religion does not depend on the accidents of space and time. With ever-increasing clearness 
the prophets had declared that unless the nation repented inwardly as well as outwardly 
their sanctuary should he desecrated and forsaken, and that the true Israel should survive in 
a faithful remnant which had learnt that God was a spirit, and must be worshiped in spirit 
and in truth. 

The Assyrian had been recognized by the prophets as the instrument of God’s wrath 
upon Samaria. Nebuchadnezzar was equally recognized as the instrument of his wrath upon 
Judah. The doctrine that God requires purity in the inward man necessarily involved the 
further doctrine that sin is an abomination to him and that sooner or later it will meet with 
divine punishment. - National sin brings with it national disaster, just as the sins of the 
individual bring down upon him the wrath of God. 

The Babylonian Exile was thus a necessary part of the spiritual training which Israel had 
to undergo. One by one all the elements had been eliminated which were antagonistic to the 
ultimate mission of the chosen race. Of the descendants of Abraham only the Israelites had 
been selected for the revelation of God that was made on Sinai; of the Israelites only the 
kingdom of Judah had been allowed to carry on the work that was laid upon them; and of the 
Jewish state those only preserved their national existence who had learnt the spiritual lessons 
of prophecy. They alone were prepared for the trial of the Exile, and consequently for the 
education which the Exile was intended to provide. 

It was a new and purified Judah which returned to its old home. The Jewish monarchy 
was superseded by the Jewish Church. The main body of the returning captives consisted of 
priests, bitterly hostile to the idolatry which surrounded them and bent on keeping themselves 
separate from the gentile world. With the loss of national independence had come the 
consciousness of a religious and spiritual union, and of the fact that the true king of Israel 
was the Lord himself. It was as a theocracy, not as a monarchy, that the Jewish state must 
henceforth survive. Once more, therefore, Judah turned to the law of Moses, but with 
quickened understanding and deeper spiritual insight than had been possible before. Ezra 
the Scribe and “ the men of the Great Synagogue,” to quote the language of the Talmud, 
collected the scattered writings of the past, and revised the text of the Pentateuch. The books 
of Moses became the basis of political and social life in a way that had never previously been 
the case, and the Canon of Scripture began to be definitely formed. 

Meanwhile a new power had appeared upon the scene of history. Cyrus had overthrown 
the empire of Nebuchadnezzar and imposed his sway upon the nations of Asia from the far east 
to the shores of the Aegean. His son Cambyses completed his work by the conquest of Egypt. 
Once more, as in the days of the Assyrian successors of Tiglath-Pileser, there was one law and 
one government for the whole civilized world of the East. But the policy which directed and 


JEWISH CHURCH AFTER THE EXILE. 


43 


underlay it was changed. The conquest of Babylonia had taught Cyrus the dangers which 
attended on the older policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings. His invasion of Chaldea 
had been materially assisted by the existence of disaffected elements within Babylonia itself. 
The system of transporting the populations of conquered states had failed. The exiles had not 
lost their old feeling of individual nationality, and instead of losing themselves in their 
conquerors had retained all their old measure of hatred toward them. We gather from the 
inscriptions of Cyrus that there were others besides the Jews who welcomed in him a deliverer. 
His first act, he tells us, after the occupation of Babylonia was to permit the captive population 
to return to their former homes, carrying with them the images of their gods. The Jews alone 
had no images to take, and it was accordingly the sacred vessels of the temple which were given 
into their hands. 

The policy of Cyrus was successful, so far, at least, as the Jews werte concerned. His 
memory was regarded by them with gratitude, and Jerusalem remained faithful to the Persian 
kings. It took no part in the general revolt which broke out shortly after the death of 
Cambyses and obliged Darius to reconquer almost the whole of the empire of Cyrus. As long 
as the Persian rule lasted, the Jews continued loyal subjects to the Persian monarch. The 
“ remnant ” which had returned had ceased to dream of political independence or of a restora¬ 
tion of the Davidic monarchy ; they were content to be merely a religious community, provided 
their religion was not interfered with and their religious convictions were not outraged. More¬ 
over, between them and their new rulers there was a bond of sympathy. The Persians were 
practically monotheists. Darius and Xerxes acknowledged but one god, Ormuzd, and Xerxes 
was the destroyer of the golden image of the Babylonian Bel. 

Under the Persian domination prophecy languished and died. Its work, in fact, was 
accomplished. The revelation of God to his chosen people is henceforth realized, not in a state, 
but in a church. The Jewish Church has risen out of the ashes of the ancient monarchy. The 
high priest has taken the place of the king, the temple that of the royal palace. There is no 
longer any need of the prophet to inculcate the lesson that the God of Israel is one God, and 
that him only should the people serve. They have no other aim than that of obeying the 
Mosaic law and fulfilling its minutest precepts. 

The danger that now besets the Jewish community is a wholly new one. It is no longer 
the danger of too little zeal in God’s service, but of over-zeal. Strict obedience to the law 
threatens to dull and obscure the spiritual life. A cold formalism begins to supersede the 
devotion of the heart and the Jewish Church to lose its earlier vitality. There was need of an 
awakening, and the awakening came. 

Alexander of Macedon had seated himself upon the throne of Cyrus. The Persian empire 
passed away, trodden under foot by the Greek phalanx. On its ruins rose the kingdom of 
Alexander’s generals, and Greek culture and Greek ideas spread through Asia to the frontiers 
of India itself. Between the ideal of Greek culture and the ideal of the Jewish Church there 
was irreconcilable antagonism. Art and beauty, the pride of life and the lust of the eye, were 
the end and object of the one; a stern sense of duty, a distrust of pleasure, a puritanical hatred 
of the art which seemed to savor of idolatry, were the distinguishing characteristics of the other. 
On the one side was polytheism, with all its sensuous indulgences, on the other side an uncom¬ 
promising monotheism and the Mosaic law. 

Prophecy was silent; no priest had arisen with the Urim and Thummim, and the require¬ 
ments of ritual were fast becoming a weightier matter in the eyes of the religious teachers of the 
people than a holy life and a pure heart. It was little wonder, therefore, that the seductions 
of the Greek culture proved too strong for a considerable portion of the Jewish community. 
Numbers of the more educated and ruling classes yielded to the new influences that were 
around them, and it almost seemed at one time as if Judah was about to forget its mission, 


44 


SPREAD OF JUDAISM.—CANONICAL BOOKS. 


and to be swallowed up in the Greek world. The Maccabean revolt and the defeat of the 
armies of Antiochus Epiphanes saved the Jewish Church, and once more separated the true 
Israel from those who were Israelites only in name. 

VIII. 

The Maccabean revolt belongs to the same age as the Greek translation of the books of the 
Old Testament, commonly known as the Septuagint. The translation is a testimony to the 
influence of the Greek language and to that invasion of the East by Europe which culminated 
in the Roman empire; but it is also a testimony to the fact that Judaism was in its turn 
invading the gentile world and infusing it with its own ideas. Jewish communities were 
establishing themselves outside Palestine, filled with men as zealous for the faith of their fathers 
as those who had remained in Jerusalem, but who, nevertheless, were willing to mingle with the 
Greek world and to convert it to their own views. The Greek translation of the Hebrew 
Scriptures rendered those Scriptures accessible to all the educated classes of Europe and Western 
Asia, and at the same time brought the fact home to the mind of everyone that Judaism was 
not necessarily confined within the limits of Palestine as the heritage of a single people, but 
might be shared in by all mankind. The time had come when God’s revelation to Israel might 
be preached to the whole world ; when the truth of the unity of God could be believed by Jew 
and gentile alike, and when the Jewish Church, freed from its national peculiarities, its exclu¬ 
siveness, and its individualism, might be developed into that universal church which the 
prophets had beheld in the dim future. As the Jewish community was about to be merged into 
the universal entire of Rome, so the Jewish Church was likewise about to be transformed into 
the Catholic Church of Christ. 

The Septuagint translation presupposes that the Old Testament Canon was complete, or 
very nearly so. A collection of sacred books must have existed before it could be translated 
into Greek. The fact that the Canon adhered to in Palestine differed in some respects from the 
Canon which came to be adopted by the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt makes no difference 
to the general fact. 

The word “ Canon ” denoted a rule or standard laid down by public authority. The 
Canonical books, accordingly, were those which were recognized by the Church as conforming to 
a particular standard. But this standard itself constituted the rule and law of the Church. It 
was by it that doctrines were tested and decided, so that whatsoever could not be proved out of 
Holy Scripture was not to be required as necessary to salvation. The books of Scripture were 
the title-deeds of the Church; the foundation upon which her creeds were built, and her 
ultimate court of appeal. 

In the Book of Daniel 1 reference is made to “ the books ” or scriptures, one of which 
contained the prophecies of Jeremiah. But the first definite account of the Hebrew Canon is 
to be found in the Prologue of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, the Greek translator of which, 
writing in B. C. 132, states that his grandfather “ had much given himself to the reading of 
the law and the prophets and other books of our fathers.” The same threefold division, 
therefore, which we still find in the Hebrew Bible was at that time in existence, and it is again 
alluded to by our Lord when he speaks of “the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the 
psalms.” 2 The Jewish historian, Josephus, in his controversy with the Alexandrine gram¬ 
marian, Apion, toward the end of the first century A. D., is still more explicit. He tells us that 
there were twenty-two books which the Jewish Church “ rightly believed to be divine,” and that 
they consisted of five books of Moses, thirteen books of the prophets, and four others which 
“contain hymns to God and didactic teaching for men.” From this list Ecclesiastes alone 


'Daniel ix, 2. 


2 Luke xxiv, 44. 



CANONICAL BOOKS. 


45 


seems to be excluded. According to the Jewish belief the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 
and Kings were written by prophets and were consequently regarded as prophetical. The view 
was just, for, as we have seen, the prophets were the early writers of Jewish history, and the 
educators of the people throughout the period of the monarchy. The “ didactic teaching ” of 
Josephus is the Haggadah of the Jewish Talmud. 

In one respect, however, the arrangement of Josephus deviates from that of the Hebrew 
Bible since his time. In his third division of the Holy Scriptures he reckons only four books 
instead of the nine, or the eleven, which appear in the modern Hebrew Bible. The twelve 
minor prophets were considered to be one book, the Books of Buth and of Lamentations were 
attached to Judges and Jeremiah, and the Books of Job, Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra, and the 
Chronicles were counted among the prophets. This would leave the Psalms, the Proverbs, the 
Book of Daniel, and the Canticles for the last division of the sacred books. 

But it must be remembered that there was a considerable amount of controversy among the 
Jewish Babbis as to the canonical character of the Books of Esther, of Canticles, and of Eccles¬ 
iastes, and that in the case of Ecclesiastes more especially discussion grew hot between the great 
schools of Hillel and Shammai. Indeed, it would seem that it was not until the Council of 
Jamnia, about A. D. 90, that the Book of Ecclesiastes was finally admitted into the Canon, and 
the Talmud declares that it would have been considered apocryphal had it not been for the 
verses at the beginning and end. Josephus, throughout his writings, never refers to either 
Canticles or Ecclesiastes, Proverbs or Job, and Philo the learned Jew of Alexandria in the age 
of Christ, is equally silent in regard to the Books of Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Esther. In the 
New Testament also there is a similar silence in regard to Ecclesiastes and Canticles, as well as 
to Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Judges. 

In contrast with the extreme caution displayed by the Palestinian Jews in admitting books 
into the sacred Canon, was the readiness of the Jews of Alexandria to enlarge the volume of 
Holy Scripture. The Septuagint, as it was received by the early Christian Church, included 
several books which are now to be found in the so-called Apocrypha. Early Christian writers, 
accordingly, generally quoted them as of equal authority with the other canonical Scriptures. 
It was St. Jerome who threw the weight of his influence and learning on the side of admitting 
only the twenty-four books of the Palestinian Hebrew Canon, and in spite of the contrary view 
of St. Augustine his opinion came, on the whole, to prevail. The question, however, was never 
authoritatively decided in the Western Church till an attempt was made to do so by the Council 
of Trent. But the attempt only led to an additional cause of difference between the Boman 
and the Beformed Churches. 

The wider limits assigned to the Old Testament Canon at Alexandria were in some measure 
due to the doctrine of inspiration which prevailed there. Moses, as Philo tells us, was the 
“ Chief-prophet ” of God, the holy men who followed him being but his disciples and comrades. 
The Pentateuch accordingly was the sole authoritative source and rule of faith, round which all 
other sacred writings revolved like satellites round their central sun. The inspiration which 
was breathed through these lesser and derivative Scriptures was different in degree, if not in 
kind, from that of the law itself, and though the wisdom of God spoke through their writers it 
was only in so far as their works reflected the teaching and truths of the law. Wherever this 
was the case, the voice of the divine wisdom might be recognized and the work in which it was 
heard might be admitted into the collection of sacred books. 

A similar doctrine was also held by the Jewish Church in Palestine, though the results 
which followed from it were not the same. There also the Pentateuch was exalted at the 
expense of all the books of the Old Testament Canon. They were all “ divine,” it is true, but 
the divine character of the Mosaic law was incomparably higher than that of the prophetical 


46 


JEWISH CONCEPTION OF THE CANON. 


and later books. It alone formed the basis of orthodox belief; it was the one supreme rule of 
faith by which all doctrines and all other books had to be tried. 

Among the Sadducees and Samaritans this doctrine led to the practical rejection of the 
divine authority of all other portions of the Hebrew Canon. Whatever belief could not be 
proved out of the five books of Moses was at once condemned. But among the bulk of the 
Jews, whose opinion ultimately became that of the whole Jewish Church, the doctrine had less 
far-reaching consequences. It merely caused the Pentateuch to be put in a place apart, and to 
be regarded as of higher authority than the rest of the Canon. The Canon was further divided 
into three parts, consisting of the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Kethubim or “Writings,” 
more usually known as the Hagiographa, and as the Pentateuch was held to exceed in degree of 
inspiration and importance the Prophets, so too the Prophets were considered to exceed the 
Hagiographa which followed them. 

The Hagiographa comprise all those books which, from one cause or another, were the last 
to be added to the Canon of Scripture. They consist of the following books : Psalms, Proverbs, 
Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the two books of the Chroni¬ 
cles, to which Butli and Lamentations are usually added. 

The distinction between the Pentateuch and the rest of the Canon on the one hand, and 
the Prophets and the Hagiographa on the other, must be carefully kept in mind, as it consti¬ 
tutes the keystone in the Jewish theories about the Scriptures. The prophets are the interpret¬ 
ers and followers of Moses; they hand on the law which he was commissioned to deliver, and 
explain those parts of it which are obscure. But it is only in so far as they are in agreement 
with the law that their teaching is to be listened to ; if it could be shown that they differ from 
the law or originate new ideas of their own they would have to be rejected at once. Their 
authority is not so much derived from any special revelation to themselves as from the revela¬ 
tion which was made once for all to Moses. The Hagiographa stand on a still lower footing. 
They form, as it were, a bridge from the Canon to the uncanonical works that were based upon 
it. Nevertheless, they are a part of the Canon; they “soil the hands,” as the Talmud expresses 
it. But they relate to ritual and preaching rather than to the foundations of religious faith, 
and they introduce us to that “Haggadah” — that transformation of history into parable—to 
which Talmudic Judaism became so attached. In the Pentateuch we have history combined 
with the establishment of law and religion; in the Prophets we again have history with its 
religious and moral explanation ; in the Hagiographa. history tends to pass into parable and to 
be considered of importance only in so far as it can teach a lesson in religion or morality. 

Such was the Jewish conception of the Canon of the Old Testament. It was a conception 
underneath which lay a belief in a most stringent form of inspiration, but modified by the 
further belief that inspiration admitted of various degrees. While the Pentateuch was what we 
should now call verbally inspired, the inspiration of the other books of the sacred volume was 
at most but plenary. Indeed, it may be questioned whether the Hagiographa were not often 
regarded much in the same way as the Apocrypha in the English Church. 

IX. 

Modern study and research have done much to change or modify these older ideas of the 
character of Scripture. The Canon, indeed, remains as it was — that is a matter which has 
been definitely settled once for all — but our views in regard to the contents of the Canon have 
necessarily undergone alteration in the course of centuries. Controversy and inquiry have 
been more especially keen during the last century and a half, and revolutionary theories have 
been propounded, which, if accepted in their entirety, would reverse the judgment of the Jewish 
Church and overthrow the continuous and universal belief of historical Christianity. The 


FALLA CIO US CRITICISM. 


47 


Pentateuch, it is now alleged, instead of being the oldest portion of the Old Testament, and the 
ioundation of Israelitish religion and history, is really later than many of the books which are 
classed by Jewish tradition among the Prophets; the larger part of the law, instead of being 
promulgated by Moses, is the invention of the age of Josiah and the Exile; while the Book of 
the Law professedly found by Hilkiah, the high priest, in the temple in the reign of Josiah, is 
actually the older portion of the Book of Deuteronomy, which has just been composed for the 
first time. 

The arguments by which such views are supported are mainly philological. It has long 
been recognized that there are traces in the Pentateuch of the use of different documents, 
especially in the Book of Genesis. The critic, accordingly, has set himself, to separate these, one 
from the other, and to determine to his own satisfaction the precise fragments that belong to 
each. The process of dissection has been carried out with such nicety that the beginning of a 
verse is ascribed to one author, the middle of it to a second, and the end of it to a third. But 
such mathematical exactitude would be impossible in the case of a modern English writer; 
much more must it be so in the case of an ancient Hebrew writer. Hebrew has long since 
ceased to be a spoken language, and our knowledge of it is derived from the limited amount of 
literature contained within the covers of the Old Testament. Such knowledge is necessarily 
imperfect; numberless words must have existed of which no trace remains, while the interpre¬ 
tation of many of those that remain is exceedingly doubtful. Equally doubtful and equally 
imperfect must be our knowledge of the niceties of Hebrew grammar and still more of Hebrew 
idiom. How, then, is it possible to determine the peculiarities of the documents embodied in 
the Pentateuch with such precision as to know where one begins and another ends, or to what 
date they are severally to be ascribed ? 

It is true that support is found for the conclusions of the so-called “ literary analysis ” in 
other lines of argument. Thus, it is urged that there are evidences in the Pentateuch of three 
separate systems of legislation, which have been superimposed upon one another, the earliest 
belonging to the nomadic period in the history of Israel, the second coinciding with the time 
when the Israelites were firmly established in the Promised Land, and the third implying the 
age of the Exile. The oldest code, termed the Book of the Covenant, 1 though not put into 
shape until after the foundation of the monarchy, embodied ancient material some of which 
may have gone back to Moses himself. In it the priests, it is urged, are not yet regarded as a 
special and separate class ; altars are ordered to be built wherever the Lord shall “ record ” his 
“ name 3 the only feasts known are those of the Sabbath, the Sabbatical year, and the feasts 
of unleavened bread, of the harvest, and of the ingathering; the only sacrifices enjoined are 
burnt offerings and peace offerings; while the commands in regard to purification are con¬ 
spicuous by their absence. In the Deuteronomic code, which is supposed to have first come into 
existence in the age of Josiah, there is a distinct advance upon this earlier legislation. The 
whole tribe of Levi is set apart for the priesthood; it is only “ in the place which the Lord 
shall choose in one of” the Israelitish “tribes” 3 that altars may be erected; new feasts are 
introduced, the Passover, the feasts of weeks and of tabernacles, and the year of release; tithes, 
vows and freewill offerings are added to the simple sacrifices of the older epoch; and a 
distinction is made between clean and unclean beasts. In the latest or “ priestly code,” which 
occupies the larger part of Leviticus and Numbers and is asserted to belong in its complete 
form to the age after the Exile, there is further and radical change. The priests, “ the sons 
of Aaron,” are distinguished from the Levites, who henceforth are relegated to subordinate posts 
about the sanctuary; it is only at the tabernacle, the type and precursor of the temple of 
Jerusalem, that sacrifices and offerings may be made, the festivals of the new moon and the 
seven great Sabbaths, the day of first fruits, the feast of trumpets, the year of jubilee, and above 


1 Exodus xxiv, 7. 


2 Exodus xx, 24. 


3 Deuteronomy xii, 14. 



48 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE BIBLE. 


all the great day of Atonement, are added to the earlier list of festivals; sin offerings and 
trespass offerings are commanded in addition to those already known; and the laws about 
purification assume a- prominent position and are of minute character. 

The existence of these three stages in the Mosaic legislation cannot be denied, though the 
conclusions drawn from them by the “ higher criticism ” need not be accepted. The composite 
character, of the Mosaic books is a fact now accepted by all schools of theological opinion. The 
more we know about early oriental literature the more certain it becomes that the oldest and 
most authoritative portion of it was to a certain extent a compilation and a growth. The 
“ Book of the Dead,” which has been termed the Bible of the ancient Egyptians, is an illus¬ 
tration of this fact. It is a combination of ancient materials, put together at the very beginning 
of Egyptian history, and subsequently enlarged by additions of various kinds. Marginal notes 
and commentaries crept into the text, explanations of phrases or ideas which had become 
obsolete made their way into the body of the work and in their turn became the subject of later 
explanations and notes, while whole chapters were interpolated which did not belong to the 
original book, though they were doubtless of great antiquity. The Babylonian collection of 
hymns to the gods suffered the same fate. Here, too, the text underwent many alterations, and 
numerous additions were made to the original work, before the text was finally fixed so rigidly 
that the slightest deviation from it was considered to he a sin. 

It is evident that the history of the Pentateuch also cannot have been very dissimilar. 
The Book of Genesis relates the history of times long anterior to the birth of Moses. If, 
therefore, the great Hebrew legislator was its author he must have made use of older documents 
which he combined together and incorporated in his work. From the very nature of the case 
the book must be a compilation. Nor need we believe that the Pentateuch, as a whole, took its 
final shape before the time of Ezra and “ the men of the Great Synagogue.” Such, at least, was 
the Hebrew tradition. Indeed, the Second Book of Esdras (chapter xiv) goes further and 
ascribes to Ezra the rewriting of all the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, including the 
Law. The law, it is said, had been burnt and lost, and was consequently revealed again to 
Ezra from whose lips it was written down. Besides the twenty-four books of the Canon seventy 
other books were revealed to the Jewish scribe, which contained esoteric doctrine, too sacred 
to be published. In all, therefore, ninety-four books (not two hundred and four as in the 
Vulgate and the Authorized Version) were written in forty days by Ezra’s assistants. The 
same story is repeated by the early Fathers of the Christian Church, and we meet with it in the 
works not only of St. Clement of Alexandria, 1 but in those of St. Irenaeus as well. 8 The fact 
that the death and burial of Moses are described in the last chapter of Deuteronomy would 
of itself show that the old Hebrew tradition had a foundation of truth. Moreover, a careful 
examination of the historical books of the Old Testament gives further indications that the 
history of the Pentateuch resembled that of most of the other sacred books of the world. On 
the one hand, it is plain that the Mosaic law could have been but imperfectly known. The 
best of the kings and prophets would otherwise have never set its commands at defiance by 
sacrificing at the high places and allowing laymen to take upon them the functions of the priest. 
In fact, the Books of Samuel, so far from regarding sacrifices at the high places as forbidden by 
the law, look upon it as an usage in which there is nothing to reprimand. Up to the days of 
Hezekiah the people had burnt incense to “ the brazen serpent that Moses had made ” all 
through the days of men like Samuel and David, Jehosliaphat and Jehoiada, and it was not 
until the reign of Josiah that the “ Book of the Law ” was found in the temple. The reading 
of it produced an immediate effect upon both the king and his subjects, and brought about the 
most thoroughgoing reformation witnessed in Judah during the period of the kings. Such a 
neglect of the Book of the Law would, on the other hand, inevitably produce corruption of its 


1 Strom, i, 24. 


'* Adv. Hser. iii, 21, 22 (A. D. 185). 



AUTHENTICITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 


49 


text. Where none was concerned to preserve it intact, or where portions of it only were read 
and known, phrases would necessarily make their way into it, if not whole chapters anti 
paragraphs. Words and phrases which had ceased to be intelligible would be altered or 
explained, the explanations, as in the Egyptian “ Book of the Dead,” subsequently being incor¬ 
porated into the work, and from time to time the text would be adapted to the requirements and 
conceptions of the age. Where a text was not protected by a reverence which made every 
letter of it sacred, more especially if it were a code of religious and national law, changes of 
this kind would almost certainly have taken place. We need not be surprised, therefore, if it 
can be shown that periods subsequent to that of the Exodus are reflected in parts of the 
Pentateuch, or if instances are recorded in it which belong to a later age. This would not 
make it any the less the work of Moses as a whole, or diminish its value and authority, 
religious as well as historical. 

Moreover, if there is any truth in the biblical record, the law was revealed to Moses by 
God himself. It was not the self-evolved code of a legislator, whose view was limited by the 
needs of the community for whom the laws were made. It was a code given by the national 
God of Israel, a God whom the Christian Church believes to have been also the one true God 
and Creator of the world. The legislation, therefore, which Moses was commissioned to pro¬ 
mulgate could not have been intended merely for the temporary wants of the caravan in the 
wilderness. It must have had lying, as it were, implicit within it the principles of the legisla¬ 
tion, both secular and divine, which Israel would need in the land that had been promised to it. 
It may be that the regulations necessitated by the after life of the Israelitish people were not 
described in detail: that may well have been left to a future age to accomplish in accordance 
with the divine scheme of gradual education ; but if we believe at all in the divine origin of the 
Mosaic law we must believe also that there lay in it all the germs and principles which it was 
reserved for later experience to develop. Hence, while we may fully admit that until the 
time of Ezra there was no fixity or finality in the text of the Pentateuch, and that the laws 
contained in it could be modified or developed as the progress of the centuries demanded, we 
must also believe that the legislation as a whole is of Mosaic origin, and that we may safely turn 
to the Pentateuch for authentic records of early Hebrew times. 

Here, however, the “ higher criticism ” would again join issue with our conclusions. The 
narratives of the Pentateuch are denied a historic value, and the denial is based on a variety of 
assumptions. There is, first of all, the assumption that the Israelites of the age of Moses and 
for many centuries afterward were illiterate barbarians, without books or schools or scribes. 
Then there is the second assumption that the results of the “ literary analysis ” are ascertained 
and unassailable facts. And lastly, there is the assumption that none of the documents discover¬ 
able in the Pentateuch — or rather the Hexateuch, for the Book of Joshua is attached to the 
Books of Moses — is older than the revolt of the ten tribes and that the statements contained 
in them are derived for the most part from oral tradition and report. 

If the documents are indeed of so late a date, if none of the materials embodied in the 
Book of Genesis goes back to the age to which they relate, the conclusion of the higher critics 
would be justified. We cannot trust a history which is not contemporaneous with the events it 
professes to record. Unless we have a written record descending from the time to which the 
events belong, we can have no certainty that the events have ever happened. Oral testimony, 
unchecked by other and more trustworthy evidence, leads us to myth rather than to sober 
history. 

If, therefore, it can be proved that neither the Pentateuch in its present form nor the mate¬ 
rials which are embodied in it are of older date than the ninth century before the Christian era, 
we shall be forced to allow that the skepticism of the critics may be right. But such a proof 
cannot be given. A scientific fact can be established only by the method of comparison, and 


50 


ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE PENTATEUCH. 


the critics have nothing hut the books of the Old Testament itself with which to compare them. 
To compare a thing with itself is not a scientific mode of comparison. 


X. 

But though the purely biblical critic is unable to invoke the method of comparison there 
is another worker in the field of ancient literature that is able to do so. Oriental archaeology is 
a new and very important factor in Old Testament controversy. It is the creation and the 
marvel of our nineteenth century, and its discoveries become every day more numerous and 
more startling. It has already caused us to rewrite the history of the ancient oriental world, to 
reconsider the opinions which we have inherited from the past, and to realize for the first time 
how high was the culture and civilization of the ancient East. It brings us face to face with 
the men around whom the history of the past has gathered; we can read their thoughts, dissect 
their beliefs and reconstruct their daily life. We have disinterred and interpreted the actual 
monuments which they left behind them, and are, therefore, no longer dependent on the accidents 
of a merely literary tradition and the vicissitudes through which manuscripts and the copies of 
manuscripts must pass. A history which was already a sealed book to the Greeks and Romans 
has been opened out before our eyes, and almost every day brings us fresh revelations of a 
forgotten past. The historical records contained in the Pentateuch no longer, therefore, stand 
alone. It is no longer possible to question their authenticity on the ground that they are 
inconsistent with one another or with the critic’s conceptions of the condition of the ancient 
world, or because the documents which embody them are assumed to he late. We can now 
confront the conclusions of critical skepticism with the monumental facts of oriental archaeology. 
And the result is not favorable to the cause of skepticism. The historical character of a consid¬ 
erable part of the Pentateuch has been vindicated; we may anticipate with confidence that more 
of it will he vindicated in the future. 

We have already seen that the primary assumption upon which so much of recent Old 
Testament criticism has been really built, the assumption, namely, of the late use of writing in 
Israel, is an assumption against which modern discovery emphatically protests. There is no 
reason why Moses should not have been able to write the Pentateuch — nay, there is every reason 
why he could have done so. And the documents made use of for the earlier history of Genesis 
may equally well have been of the date to which their narratives refer. Indeed, in one or two 
instances we can now show that they actually were. The historical character of the fourteenth 
chapter of Genesis, for example, has been established by Assyriological research, despite all the 
arguments which an unbelieving criticism had brought against it. So far from a Babylonian 
campaign into the West being inconceivable in the time of Abraham, as has been asserted, we 
learn from the cuneiform inscriptions not only that the kings of Babylonia claimed to be rulers 
of the “ land of the Amorites ” two or three centuries before Abraham could have been born, 
but that long ages previously Babylonian monarclis had conquered the West, welding it into a 
single empire with their own Chaldean home, setting up images of themselves on the shores of 
the Mediterranean and even marching their troops into the Sinaitic Peninsula. The cuneiform 
tablets of Tel el-Amarna, which show that the Babylonian script and language had become the 
script and literary language of Western Asia, are a proof how profound and lasting the 
influence of Babylonia must have been. The very names that meet us in the fourteenth chapter 
of Genesis, as well as the political situation it implies, are met with again in the early annals of 
Chaldea. Lagamar was an Elamite god, and Kudur-Mabug, “ the servant of the god Ma-bug,” is 
the name of an Elamite prince who lived just at the period to which the Book of Genesis would 
refer the lifetime of Abraham, and who is called by his son “ the father ” or “ ruler of the 
Amorite-land.” This son was king of the Babylonian principality of Larsa, and his name was 


THE BIBLE AND BABYLONIAN RECORDS. 


51 


Eri-Aku, in which we cannot fail to recognize that of Arioch, king of El-lasar. Babylonia was 
at the time divided into several states, and an Elamite chieftain was exercising suzerainty over 
it. Such is the evidence of the cuneiform record and such is also the evidence of the Old 
Testament. 

Let us turn, again, to the tenth chapter of Genesis. Here we read that Canaan was the 
brother of Mizraim or Egypt. But there was only one period in the history of the ancient 
world when such an expression was correct, and when a writer could have coupled Canaan 
geographically and politically with the kingdom of the Nile. This was the period of the 
eighteenth and nineteenth Egyptian dynasties — the period, that is to say, to which Moses 
belongs. 

When, then, the statements of the Pentateuch can be tested by an appeal to the evidence of 
contemporaneous monuments, the verdict has been given on its side. Is it fair to deny that this 
would be equally the case where the evidence has not yet been found ? On the contrary, the 
confirmation archaeology has already afforded of the substantial truth of Old Testament history 
is a presumption that the more' archaeological discovery advances the more will that truth be 
confirmed. 

One of the arguments of the negative criticism in favor of the late date some of its 
advocates assigned to the Book of Genesis has been disposed of by the tablets of Tel el- 
Amarna. Certain of the earlier narratives of Genesis have a strong Babylonian coloring, 
and in the case of one of them — the account of the Deluge — we have learned that the Chal¬ 
dean and biblical accounts resembled each other even in details. It was urged that this 
likeness could be explained only by the Exile, when the Jews had an opportunity of acquaint¬ 
ing themselves with the ancient literature and legends of Babylonia. But we now know that 
this literature and these legends were studied in Palestine, and even in Egypt, before the 
Exodus took place. Moses and his contemporaries could have read, and, if need were, have 
copied them in Egypt as well as in Canaan. The latter portion of the Babylonian legend of 
the first man, Adapa (or Adama), and of how sin entered the world has been found among the 
debris of the office of the scribe at Tel el-Amarna, while the beginning of it, belonging to a copy 
made for the Assyrian king nearly eight centuries after the tablet of Tel el-Amarna had been 
buried in the ground, has been brought from the ruins of the library of Nineveh to the British 
Museum. So, too, the Babylonian story of the Flood has its parallels in both of the documents 
into which the biblical narrative has been analyzed. Both the “Elohist” (or “Priestly 
Code ”) and the “ Jehovist ” exhibit proofs of an acquaintance with it; we cannot say that, 
while one of them borrowed from it in Babylonia during the Exile, the materials of the other 
were drawn from it at an earlier time from some Palestinian version. The Babylonian coloring 
appears in both alike, while there are indications, such as the change of the Babylonian “ ship ” 
into an “ ark,” that the biblical account was written on Palestinian ground. 

Modern criticism would reject the judgment of Jewish antiquity which separated the Book 
of Joshua from the five books of Moses and included it among the Prophets. It has become the 
fashion to speak of the “ Hexateuch,” and to regard the Book of Joshua as forming a con¬ 
tinuation of the Book of Deuteronomy. From the purely literary and philological point of view 
this conclusion of criticism may be right. As has already been said, the Pentateuch probably 
underwent a final revision shortly after the return from the Exile ; indeed, that such a revision 
took place is expressly stated by Jewish tradition. There is no reason why the original Book of 
Joshua should not have shared in the revision and have been appended to the books of Moses. 
The death of the great legislator would be naturally followed by an account of his successor, 
and of the mode in which the work he had begun was carried out. In the Pentateuch we have 
a history of the preparation for the conquest of Canaan ; in the Book of Joshua a history of the 
conquest itself. That the latter book, therefore, should show the same redacting hand as those 
6 


52 


INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


which precede it is only natural. Thus far the results of the “ literary analysis may be safely 
accepted. 

But on the other hand it must be remembered that, if the so-called Hexateuch had ever 
really formed a single work, it would be impossible to explain the sharp line of demarcation that 
was made by the Jews and Samaritans as far back as our materials allow us to go between the 
“ prophetical ” Book of Joshua and the Mosaic law. We may even trace this line of demarca¬ 
tion back to the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra read and expounded “ the book of the law 
of Moses ” 1 and it was in “ the book of Moses ” that the prohibition was found against the 
entrance of the Ammonite and Moabite “ into the congregation of God.” 2 At that time, at any 
rate, “ the book of the law of Moses ” or “ the book of Moses ” must have been a compact whole 
and have ended where the Pentateuch ends to-day. In the belief of Ezra and his contempo¬ 
raries neither the “ Deuteronomist ” nor a later “ redactor ” could have incorporated the history 
of Joshua’s conquests into the sacred law. The same testimony is borne by the Canon of the 
Samaritans which consisted of the Pentateuch alone. The Pentateuch, and the Pentateuch 
only, was considered of such divine origin as to constitute the sole rule and basis of faith. This 
belief, however, presupposes that the Pentateuch had already been marked off by the Jews from 
all the rest of their ancient literature, and that the doctrine of a graduated inspiration in the 
books of the Canon had already taken root among them. Had there ever been actually a Hex¬ 
ateuch, the existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch would be hard to explain. 

Like the other historical books of the Old Testament the Book of Joshua is a compilation. 
This accounts for the full details that are given of certain events in the conquest of Canaan, 
and the little that is said about others. While the capture of Ai is described at length, and the 
war of the five kings against Gibeon is fully described, we hear nothing of the way in which 
the kings of Taanach or Megiddo or Dor were overcome, 3 or- of the war which he carried on 
“ a long time ” with the Canaanites of the north. 4 In the Books of Judges, of Samuel, and of 
Kings the marks of compilation are very distinct. In the Book of Judges we find an ancient 
song of triumph, the song of Deborah and Barak, one of -the earliest relics of popular Hebrew 
literature, and in the Books of Samuel we have varying accounts of David’s rise to favor with 
Saul which are not very easy to reconcile. The compiler has given them honestly, just as he 
found them, without any attempt to harmonize their apparent contradictions. That is the task 
that has been left to a later and more critical age. 

When these compilations of ancient documents were thrown into their present shape it is 
generally useless as well as needless for us to inquire. It is only in the case of the Books of 
Kings that we can approximately fix a date. Here the compiler breaks off with the statement 
that Evil-Merodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, had brought the captive Jewish 
king Jehoiacliin out of prison and had given him a daily allowance “ all the days of his life.” 
Evil-Merodach reigned only two years, being murdered in B. C. 560. It would seem that the 
Books of Kings must have been finished before this happened and while Evil-Merodach was 
still on the throne. In that case the date of the work can be determined almost to a year. 5 

The Books of Samuel were doubtless finished at a very much earlier period. What this 
precisely was is a matter of little consequence. The important thing is not the date of the 
compilation, but of the documents of which that compilation consists. If they are contempora¬ 
neous with the events they commemorate, their statements can be accepted as authentic and 
trustworthy; if they are of later origin, we cannot be sure of their historical truth. 

For the most part even the most skeptical criticism is constrained to admit the historical 
character and early date of the materials used in the Books of Judges and Samuel. It is admit¬ 
ted that the song of Deborah and Barak is of the age to which it claims to belong, and that 

1 Nehemiah viii, 1. 2 Nehemiah xiii, 1. 3 Joshua xii, 21, 23. 4 Joshua xi, 18. 

6 Cf. also I. Kings iv, 24, “beyond the river” Euphrates, mistranslated in the Authorized Version. 



OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY CONFIRMED BY ARCHAEOLOGY. 


do 


many of the narratives incorporated in the Books of Samuel were composed in the reign of 
David. Even where a narrative has been asserted to be a fiction or a misinterpreted tradition 
we can at times bring archaeological testimony to prove its exactitude. Thus, the account of the 
oppression of Israel by the king of Aram-Naharaim, shortly after the Israelitish settlement in 
Canaan, has been called improbable and unhistorical. But the tablets of Tel el-Amarna have 
risen up to corroborate the story. We learn from them that the kingdom of Mitanni, called 
Nahrina by the Egyptians and Aram-Naharaim in the Old Testament, was for a long period of 
time an important element in the history of Canaan. It had made alliances with Canaanitish 
or Amorite chiefs and had sent forth its armies to invade the land. The presence of its troops 
in southern Palestine, therefore, was no new thing. Moreover, there was a special reason why 
the king of Naharaim should hold Palestine in subjection in the days of Othniel. If, as 
Egyptologists believe, the Exodus took place in the closing days of the nineteenth Egyptian 
dynasty, the conquest of Canaan could not have been effected before Raineses III., the second 
Pharaoh of the twentieth dynasty, sat upon the throne. Now, Rameses III. was assailed by a 
vast confederacy of northern tribes which had descended upon Egypt by sea and land. Those 
who had marched by land had made their way through the lands of Naharaim, of the Hittites, 
and of the Amorites and had carried with them in their march some of the populations whose 
countries had been overrun. Among these were the people of Naharaim. Nevertheless, 
though Naharaim was one of the nations with whom the Pharaoh was called upon to fight, 
its king did not enter Egypt. This is certain from the fact that he is not named among 
the princes who took part in the great invasion. While, therefore, he had joined the invaders 
he yet had not actually crossed the Egyptian frontier. What is more probable than that he had 
remained behind in southern Palestine, and that in him we must see the Cliuslian-rish-athaim 
of the Book of Judges ? 


XI. 

Archaeology is thus vindicating the trustworthiness of the documents embodied in the 
historical books of the Old Testament. It has shown that they are what they profess to be, 
authentic records of actual facts. It has given us an assurance both that they themselves go 
back to the early age of Israelitish history, and that the compilers who have used them have 
done so honestly. There has been no tampering with the words of the original writer ; where 
two narratives existed which seemed inconsistent with one another, both have been given with¬ 
out any attempt to explain away their contradictions. The good faith of the compiler is con¬ 
spicuous throughout, and we may feel confident that in the Books of Joshua and Judges, of 
Samuel and Kings we have documents and materials coeval with the facts which they have 
handed down to us. 

Doubtless the compilation was intended to convey a religious lesson. It was not only the 
history of Israel that had to he recorded, but also the religious and moral truths which that his¬ 
tory illustrated. The writer had a religious aim over and above his purely historical one. 
But this is just what we should expect if he wrote under the guidance of the divine will. The 
very essence of what is termed inspiration is that the inspired Scripture should be “ profitable 
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” This is the quality 
which distinguishes it from writings that are merely secular. It is because the history of Israel 
has been so written as to convey “ instruction in righteousness ” that the historical books of the 
Old Testament form part of the Canon of Scripture. 

The materials used by the compilers of the historical books were various. Poems and 
psalms, books like that of Joshua, the writings of the prophets, and the state chronicles and 
records were all alike brought into requisition. They imply the existence of a considerable 


54 


SCRIBES AND LIBRARIES OF ANTIQUITY. 


amount of literary activity, and consequently of teachers and schools. The cuneiform charac¬ 
ters employed throughout Western Asia at the time when the tablets of Tel el-Amarna were 
written had been superseded by the simpler Phoenician alphabet, and papyrus or leather had 
taken the place of clay as a writing material. It had consequently become easy to compose 
books of some length, as the writer was no longer limited by the possible size of a clay tablet. 
Even libraries, it is probable, were beginning to be formed. They had existed from early tunes 
in Assyria and Babylonia, as well as in Egypt, and the statement in Proverbs, xxv, 1: These 
are the proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out, goes to 
show that in Jerusalem also there was a library in which scribes were employed, as in Assyria, 
in copying, or, as we should now say, in editing the older literature of the country. 

The existence of such a library throws light on the way in which the literature was pre¬ 
served as well as upon the mode of its transmission. The Assyrian tablets show us how 
scrupulously careful the scribes were about their work. The very lacunae in the original were 
reproduced in the copy, with the words “ fracture ” or “ recent fracture ” attached to them; a 
character of whose value the scribe was doubtful was either copied exactly or else represented 
by both the signs to which he thought it might be equivalent, and when he was unable to read 
or understand his text he frankly wrote “ I do not know.” At the end of each copy a colophon 
was added stating the nature of the work and the place from which it had come, while special 
lists were drawn up of the authors of the great epics and literary productions of Chaldea. 

We have no reason to think that the Jewish scribes did not exercise equal care. When 
they tell us that certain proverbs had Solomon for their author we have no ground for imag¬ 
ining that they were without good authority for the fact. On the contrary, separated as they 
were from the wise king of Israel by an interval of only two centuries, it would have been 
extraordinary if they had had none. An autograph manuscript of Solomon could easily have 
lasted down to the time of Hezekiah, and even if it had perished, copies of it might well have 
been in existence. The usage of the Assyrian scribes warrants us in believing that when such 
copies were made, a note was added describing and guaranteeing the original text. 

When, therefore, we are told that the history of Solomon contained in the Books of Kings 
was extracted, at least in part, from “ the book of the acts of Solomon,” or when the First 
Book of the Chronicles asserts that “ the acts of David, the king, first and last, behold they are 
written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the 
book of Gad the seer,” we have every reason to credit the statement. The art of writing was 
known and practiced in Palestine long before the Israelites arrived there, and still longer before 
the Israelitish monarchy had been founded; we have gathered that under the kings a library 
was established in Jerusalem, like the libraries which existed elsewhere in the ancient oriental 
world and (as we now know) had once existed in Canaan itself before the days of the Exodus; 
and the scribes and copyists employed in the library occupied themselves with the republication 
of the older literature of their country. Archaeology has confirmed the trustworthiness of the 
history which is embodied in the Books of Judges, of Samuel, and of Kings, while even the 
most skeptical criticism is fain to admit that some of it at least is coeval with the events which 
it describes. Lastly, the compilers who have thrown this history into its present form were 
scrupulously honest, transcribing sometimes word for word the older documents that lay before 
them, even where these appear to disagree one with the other. Is not the conclusion inevitable 
that in the historical books of the Old Testament we have authentic and credible historv ? 

At the same time we must remember that it is history — not the mechanical reproduction of 
transcendental infallibility. The sacred writers were historians and not machines. We must 
not look, in them, for a mathematical exactitude which would be impossible in any form of 
history, much more in ancient oriental history. Inspiration made use of the powers and 
aptitudes of the human writer; it did not transform them into something superhuman. It 


LIBRARIES OF ANTIQUITY. 


55 


adapted history to the needs of man’s spiritual and moral nature, but it left that history with 
all the imperfections and limitation to which the age and the place rendered it subject. To 
think otherwise is to adopt the doctrine of the Hindu theologian, who believes that every word 
of the Rig-Veda is the expression of divine infallibility; it is not the doctrine which has been 
held by the Christian Church. 

From the literary point of view the Old Testament historian had the same difficulties to 
contend with as all other authors who have undertaken to write the history of the past. He 
was limited by the imperfection of his materials; where these failed him, he was liable to draw 
the same erroneous inferences as any other honest historian who wrote under similar circum¬ 
stances. He could not go beyond the facts at his disposal, and the imperfect record of the facts 
sometimes led him to wrong conclusions. The same oriental archaeology which has so fully 
vindicated the general truthfulness of the Books of Kings has also demonstrated that the 
chronological framework on which the history of the Jewish and Israelitish kingdoms is made 
to rest is altogether wrong. It is more than forty years in excess, and the synchronisms 
between the later kings of Judah and Samaria are based upon an incorrect estimate of time. 

We must not forget that when the Books of Kings were put together the kingdom of 
Judah had ceased to exist. The books were compiled in Babylonia far away from the library 
of Jerusalem, and the building in which it had been stored had doubtless been destroyed. 
The compiler nevertheless quotes from older documents, some of which he mentions by name, 
and these documents, it must be noticed, belonged not only to the Jewish kingdom but to 
the northern kingdom as well. It may be asked how an exile in a distant land could have had 
access to these records of the past ? The question is one which could not have been answered 
before the decipherment of the Assyrian monuments. 

But we now know that though the Assyrian and Babylonian kings warred upon men, they 
did not make war upon books. On the contrary, there were some among them who had strong 
literary tastes. Assur-bani-pal, the son of Esar-haddon, was especially a patron of literature, 
and no present was more acceptable to him than some ancient text which his library did not 
contain. A large portion of the books contained in the library of Nineveh were copies of texts 
which had been brought from Babylonia. Others are the old texts themselves, taken from the 
library of some city which had been captured and plundered by the Assyrian troops. One of 
these texts, which is now in the British Museum, was a list of the plants that were cultivated in 
the gardens of Merodach-baladan. 

What happened in the case of Babylonia when Assyria was the conquering power might 
well have happened in the case of Jerusalem when the holy city was taken by Nebuchadnezzar. 
The inscriptions which Nebuchadnezzar has left behind him prove him to have been a man of 
culture and piety, conciliatory and humane according to the notions of the time. Just as the 
generals of Assur-bani-pal had carried away the literary treasures of a captured Babylonian 
town, so we may assume might Nebuchadnezzar have carried away the contents of the Jewish 
library. And in Babylonia they would be accessible to whoever wished to study them. Assur- 
bani-pal is never weary of telling us that the new editions of ancient books which were made 
for the library of Nineveh were intended for the use of “ readers,” not for that of the king 
merely and a select circle of scribes. 

But, furthermore, the history of Assur-bani-pal’s library throws light on the fact that 
the compiler of the Books of Kings was able to appeal to “ the book of the chronicles of the 
kings of Israel” and to make use of the biographies of the northern prophets Elijah and 
Elisha. As Babylonian books were brought to the library of Nineveh and copied there, so too 
would copies of Israelitish books be made for the library of Jerusalem, or the originals them¬ 
selves be deposited in it. It may be that after the capture of Samaria by the Assyrian king, 
Sargon, the wreck of its ancient literature was carried to the capital of the southern kingdom. 


50 


HEBREW PROPHETICAL BOOKS. 


There are traces that the writings of the northern prophet Hosea have undergone a revision at 
the hands of Jewish editors, and that they were put into their present shape in Judah is evident 
from the introduction, where the date of Hosea’s ministry is fixed primarily by the reigns of 
Jewish sovereigns. 

XII. 

The historical books which are based on the work of the prophets lead us naturally to the 
books of the prophets themselves. But we are not to suppose that the prophetical books now 
contained in the Old Testament Canon represent the whole of the literary activity of that long 
line of prophets who, from the days of Samuel to those of Malachi, and in the northern king¬ 
dom as well as in Judah, announced the promises and the threatenings of God to a stiff-necked 
and rebellious people. Many of the prophets left no literary works behind them ; others wrote 
histories only, fragments of which have been incorporated into the historical books or into the 
collected writings of the prophets themselves; while a large amount of prophetical literature 
must have perished altogether. This must have been more especially the case with the 
prophetical literature of the northern kingdom. But much of it must have been lost in the 
South as well. Here and there we have quotations from an older prophet by one of his 
successors whose works have been preserved; or allusions are made to some ancient prophecy. 
Thus, Isaiah tells us that his prophecy against Moab 1 was one that had been made “ long ago ” 
(for such is the correct translation of chapter xvi, verse 13), and adapted by the prophet 
himself to the existing circumstances of the time. 2 Indeed, if Ewald is right, the older 
prophecy is broken off in the middle of a sentence: “ And it shall come to pass, when it is seen 
that Moab is weary on the high place, and he shall come to his sanctuary to pray, and shall not 
prevail ”— the continuation being given in the new oracle which Isaiah was commissioned to 
announce: “ But now the Lord hath spoken, saying: Within three years, as the years of an 
hireling, and the glory of Moab shall be contemned.” A similar, though briefer, quotation 
from an older prophecy is to be found quite at the beginning of the Book of Isaiah. 3 The same 
prophecy is also quoted by Micah, 4 but with additional matter which must originally have 
belonged to it both at the beginning and at the end. Chronology, however, is against the 
supposition that Isaiah had the words of Micah before him. Micah was the younger contem¬ 
porary of Isaiah, and the prophecy in question was delivered at the very commencement of 
Isaiah’s ministry. There seems, therefore, but one explanation possible: Isaiah and Micah 
alike must have derived the prophecy from an older source. 

A careful examination of these and similar quotations makes it clear that the words of a 
prophecy might be modified and changed so as to adapt them to the circumstances of the day. 
Passages might be omitted or added, and alterations might be made in the proper names. A 
prophet might revise his own prophecies in this way, as well as the prophecies of others. The 
object of prophecy was not to register the passing events of the time, but to declare the will of 
the Lord. And that declaration necessarily varied with the change of events, bringing with it 
a corresponding change in the language of prophecy. It might even happen that two versions 
— an earlier and a later one — existed of the same prophecy, so that when the prophet’s 
writings were collected together it would be needful either to choose between them or to set 
them side by side, or finally to combine them one with the other. Many of the difficulties 
which we experience in explaining the Hebrew prophecies and fixing their respective dates are 
due to this cause. Mutually inconsistent notes of time seem to be, as it were, interwoven 
together, one of them indicating a date or an occasion with which the other is incompatible, and 
at times we have a perplexing interchange of Ephraim with Judah which drives the commen¬ 
tator to despair. 


1 Isaiah xv, xvi. 


2 Isaiah xvi, 14. 


3 Isaiah ii, 2-4. 


4 Micah iv, 1-3. 



CONTROVERSY REGARDING ZECHARIAH AND ISAIAH. 


0 / 


It is only where a collection of a prophet’s writings was made either during his lifetime or 
shortly after his death, that, with a few exceptions, they have survived. The works of the 
older prophets have perished, not so much because their prophecies were not written down, for 
such a view is inconsistent with the fact that men like Nathan and Gad composed books, as 
because no authorized collection was made of their oracles. It was not needful that the prophet 
himself should commit his utterances to writing. Baruch, as we know, was the scribe of Jere¬ 
miah, and the words of the herdman Amos, which he called upon the people to “ hear ” and not 
to read, must have been written down by others. The one important thing was that the utter¬ 
ances of the prophet should have been preserved in writing, and that these written utterances 
should have been collected into a book. 

In most cases there is no question that the collection is restricted to the works of the 
prophet whose name it bears. But over the Book of Zechariah and still more over the Book of 
Isaiah a good deal of controversy has arisen. The controversy has been needlessly acrimonious, 
since so long as a prophecy is stamped with the marks of its divine origin it matters little to 
what individual, age or prophet it may belong. It is not like a historical document, whose 
credibility so largely depends upon its date. Still less is it like the Mosaic law whose divine 
authority and signification for all future Israelitish history is so closely bound up with its 
traditional claim to antiquity. Questions of date and authorship do not affect the essential 
nature of prophecy or our belief in its truth. 

Neither in matter nor in manner do the last six chapters of the Book of Zechariah 
harmonize with the eight which precede them. They presuppose a different political horizon — 
the age of the Assyrian rather than of the Persian empire. That the two collections of 
prophecies should have been bound up in the same volume is no more extraordinary than that 
books of various age and authorship should be bound up together in the same Canon of the Old 
Testament. It may be that the authors of both collections bore the same name, of Zechariah, 
or there may have been other reasons for including them in a single volume. What these 
reasons were we shall never know, and it would be useless to inquire. 

In the Book of Isaiah, too, it would seem that more than one collection of Hebrew prophe¬ 
cies has been joined together. The later chapters form a whole which, in style and language, 
as well as in their historical and geographical outlook, stand apart from the prophecies of the 
older Isaiah. Even in the English translation it is impossible to read them without feeling 
that we are transported into a new and different world, the world of Cyrus and not of Hezekiah. 
It is not that the prophet has been carried in spirit into a later age, but he moves in that age in 
actual reality. The atmosphere that surrounds him and his contemporaries is wholly changed 
from that in which the earlier Isaiah lived, whether as man or as prophet. The Jewish mon¬ 
archy has passed away, with all the ideas and beliefs that gathered around it, and a new world 
of life and thought has taken its place. 

Recent criticism would have us believe that the Book of Isaiah in its present form is almost 
as much a collection of works of different date and authorship as the Psalms themselves. The 
process of dissection and disintegration has been carried out with an unsparing hand, until com¬ 
paratively little has been left to the Isaiah whom we know by name, the contemporary and 
counselor of Hezekiah, the patriot who delivered his message of hope and encouragement to 
his countrymen in their hour of extremest danger. But such minute analysis savors of that 
hair-splitting dissection of the Pentateuch which we have already had to consider, and the 
arguments which tell against the latter tell equally against the attempt to analyze the larger 
and clearly marked discoveries of the Book of Isaiah into a number of fragments. It is true 
that the historical chapters which separate the two great divisions of the book one from the 
other are a proof that the editor did not confine himself to the collection only of Isaiah’s proph¬ 
ecies, and the Assyrian inscriptions have informed us that these chapters are but fragmentary 


58 


MINOR PROPHETS. —BOOK OF PSALMS. 


episodes extracted from a fuller story and arranged without any chronological order. But the 
fact does not authorize us to suppose that the book is a mere cento, into which the anonymous 
prophecies of the later Jewish monarchy and the Exile have been heaped pellmell together. It 
is not improbable that in some cases where the critic fancies he has discovered the signs of a 
date later than that of the contemporary Hezekiah he has merely found passages which have 
been adapted to the needs of a later time. 

In the majority of instances the introductions prefixed to the prophetical books state the 
periods to which they severally belong. Where this is not the case, speculation has been busy. 
The Book of Joel, formerly assumed to be of early date, has of late been relegated by certain 
scholars to the post-exilic epoch. The date of Nahum, on the other hand, has been approxi¬ 
mately fixed by his reference to the sack of Thebes 1 which, as we have learned from the 
Assyrian monuments, took place about B. C. 665. Among the minor prophets the Book of 
Jonah alone occupies a peculiar position. It is a book about the prophet, instead of being a 
collection of his prophecies. It reads, moreover, more like an extract from an Assyrian chron¬ 
icle than like the history of a Hebrew prophet. But whatever view we may take of its 
character will have little bearing on the question of its age. Whether it was composed shortly 
after the lifetime of the prophet or whether it is a compilation of a much later date it is impos¬ 
sible to tell. All we can say is that the author could not have been personally acquainted with 
Nineveh itself, as he includes within its precincts not only Nineveh itself, but also the neigh¬ 
boring towns of Calali and Dur-Sargon, the last of which was not built until a century after the 
age of Jonah the son of Amittai. For those who knew of Nineveh only by hearsay the state¬ 
ment was practically accurate, but it could not have been made by one who had actually visited 
the spot. 

We now come to the third and last division of the books of the Hebrew Canon. In this 
the Psalms take the foremost place. In New Testament times the whole book went under the 
name of “ David,” though it was known that many of the psalms contained in it were not the 
composition of the old Israelitish king. But David had been famous as the sweet singer of 
Israel, the founder of its psalmody, the inventor of its musical instruments, 2 and the psalms 
ascribed to him occupied a prominent position in the work. Other collections were subsequently 
added to the original one, until eventually the Book of Psalms came to consist of five collections 
combined into a single book for use in the services of the temple. As it is generally recognized 
that some of the psalms are as late as the age of the Maccabees, the final revision of the book 
must come down to a comparatively late period. Endeavors have recently been made to assign 
the whole work to the same late date, and to deny that any of the psalms are earlier than the 
post-exilic epoch. But the assumption is contrary to the universal belief of antiquity and is 
inconsistent with the internal evidence of many of the psalms themselves. Moreover, it has 
been proved that the text of the book is corrupt in several places. Had all the psalms con¬ 
tained in it originated at a period when the Septuagint translation was already in process of 
making, it is inconceivable that such should have been the case. The corruptions of the text 
imply that the psalms had been long in use and that erroneous readings had crept into them 
even before they had been collected in their present form. 

We may, in fact, see in the Book of Psalms relics of the psalmodic literature of Israel from 
the days of David down to those of the Maccabean war. That they are relics only, preserved, 
it may be, by their employment in the ritual, is evident from the existence of other psalms in 
the historical books which are not included among them. The song of “ the bow,” preserved in 
II. Samuel, i, 19-27, was extracted from the Book of Jasher and never found its way into the 
Book of Psalms, and the psalm composed by Hezekiah “ when he had been sick ” 3 is similarly 
wanting there. On the other hand, we meet with psalms in the collection which refer us to the 


1 Nahum iii, 8. 


2 Amos vi, 5. 


3 Isaiah xxxviii, 10-20. 



BOOK OF PROVERBS. —JOB. 


59 


later days of the Jewish monarchy or to the period of the captivity. It is difficult not to agree 
with Hitzig that a psalm like the seventy-sixth is most naturally referable to the overthrow of 
Sennacherib’s army, while psalms like the one hundred and twenty-sixth or the one hundred 
and thirty-seventh are full of memories of the Babylonish Exile. It is not easy to decide when 
the superscriptions attached to the psalms were first composed. That it was before the Septua- 
gint translation of them was made is evident from the fact that they already appear there. But 
their historical value is slight, and the ascription to Moses of the only psalm (the ninetieth) in 
which it is stated that the extreme age of man is four score years, shows with how small an 
amount of critical ability they were compiled. 

The second book of the Hagiographa as usually printed is the Book of Proverbs. 1 Here 
again we have a compilation of older collections of a special form of literature. The bulk of 
the work is ascribed to Solomon, and though in modern times the ascription has been disputed, 
there is no reason whatever for doubting its correctness except a general desire to reduce the age 
of the Old Testament writings and to reject the common belief of the past. To the first and 
larger collection a second was added, consisting of the proverbs which had been republished 
during the reign of Hezekiali; 2 and to that again a third collection, in which were contained 
“ the words of Lemuel the king of Massa, which his mother taught him.” The cuneiform 
inscriptions have told us where Massa was. It was the district which lay in the northern part 
of Arabia, extending from Babylonia in the east to the land of Edom in the west. It adjoined 
Uz, the home of Job, as we may gather from Genesis, x, 23, and formed part of that “ east 
country ” whose wisdom was celebrated in the days of Solomon. 3 

The Book of Proverbs is therefore fittingly associated with the Book of Job in the Hebrew 
Canon. Here, too, the hand of the modern disintegrator has been at work. The speech of 
Elihu has been declared to be an interpolation, and the introduction and conclusion of the book 
are denied to have originally belonged to it. But such judgments rest solely on the “ subjec¬ 
tive ” views and “ literary tact ” of the critic; no solid and tangible argument can be brought 
forward in their favor. The critic has been more successful in suggesting a date for the compo¬ 
sition of the book. It would seem to belong to that exilic age when the great question of the 
existence of evil began to assume an increased importance in the Jewish mind. The old 
doctrine that piety was rewarded and wickedness punished in this world had received a rude 
shock. The reforms of the good king Josiali had been followed by his defeat and death in 
battle, and God had allowed his temple to be destroyed and his people to be led into captivity 
at a time when, outwardly at all events, the law of Moses was better observed than in the earlier 
and more prosperous days of Jewish history. The old theory had broken down, and it had 
become plain that righteousness does not always bring with it worldly success, or evil-doing 
misery and disgrace. An answer was needed to the problem why the righteous is allowed to 
suffer, while the wicked flourishes, and it is this problem which the Book of Job is intended to 
solve. 

The text of this book is exceedingly hard to understand, and the Septuagint translation 
shows that such was already the case in the second century before the Christian era. The fact 
may be due to two causes. It may be that for reasons unknown to us the text became corrupted 
at an early period, or it may be that the book was originally written in a Semitic dialect, not 
exactly the same as Hebrew though closely resembling it. If this had been so, some of the 
difficulties we experience would result from our ignorance of the words and idioms of the dialect 

1 The order followed is that of German manuscripts. In the Spanish manuscripts the general order is: Chronicles, 
Psalms Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, and Ezra (with Nehemiah), while the 
Talmud arranges them as follows: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra 
(with Nehemiah), and Chronicles. These variations are in striking contrast to the fixity of the older of the Mosaic and pro¬ 
phetical books, and indicate the later date at which this part of the Canon was finally settled. 

2 Proverbs xxv-xxx. * I. Kings iv, 30. 



CANTICLES.— RUTH.— LAMENTATIONS.— ESTHER. 


GO 

in question, others from the corruptions introduced by copyists in an endeavor to assimilate the 
language of the book to ordinary Hebrew. That Job was not a native of Palestine, and that 
the scene of the work is laid in Uz, eastward of Edom, gives a coloring of probability to the 
conjecture. 

After Job comes the Song of Songs. Much nonsense has been written about this old relic 
of Hebrew lyric poetry by commentators whose heads were full of ideas concerning allegories 
and symbolical descriptions of the Church. But the book tells its own tale. It is a lyric 
drama, with the fair Shulamite as its heroine and her shepherd lover as its hero. That there 
are obscurities in the poem is true. But they are due to the difficulty of always knowing who 
it is that is speaking, whether the chorus, or the bride, or her lover, or King Solomon himself. 
The poem shows us that, as in the modern East, lyric poetry existed also among the Israelites. 
That only one specimen of it should have come down to us may be regretted, but it need 
occasion us no surprise. It was the sole example of that form of literature upon which the seal 
of inspiration had been set. The Old Testament Canon includes and represents all the varied 
products of ancient Hebrew literary art; the spirit of God inspired them all alike; but 
where its inspiration should rest was not for man to say. As there is but one Book of Job, one 
discussion of the problem of evil, so also there is but one Song of Solomon. 

That it should be called the Song of Solomon does not necessarily imply that Solomon 
was its author. It was because it related to the great king of Israel, not because it was his 
work, that the name was attached to it. Indeed, it is difficult to suppose that he could have 
written a poem which painted him in somewhat unfavorable colors. But that the work is of 
the age of the great king there is no reason for denying. The allusions in it, the atmosphere 
it breathes, are all of his age. And the philological arguments that have been urged in favor 
of a later date can none of them be sustained. 

Next in order to the Song of Songs are placed the Books of Ruth and Lamentations. 
From a historical point of view, they would more fittingly be appended to the Book of Judges 
and the prophecies of Jeremiah, the position they occupy in the English Bihle. But their 
inclusion in the Hebrew Hagiographa indicates that they were not admitted into the Canon 
until after the list of the prophetical books had been closed. They had doubtless come down 
from an early period, but for reasons which we cannot now discover their authorship must have 
been questioned and their claims to canonicity disputed. It took time before these claims could 
be finally allowed. 

We now pass on to Ecclesiastes or the Preacher. How late it was before this book was 
received into the Canon we have already seen. Modern research holds that it could not have 
been written until after the return from the Exile. Indeed, the Jewish scholar Gratz has 
endeavored to prove that its author was a contemporary of Herod, and the general opinion of 
scholars tends to refer its composition to the Maccabean age. That it cannot be of very early 
date is evidenced partly by the analogies we find in it to the ideas of Greek philosophy, partly 
and more especially by the fact that the language of it is late Hebrew. Even the so-called 
“ waw conversive,” that invariable characteristic of classical Hebrew, is (with three exceptions) 
absent from its pages. In putting the words of it, therefore, into the mouth of Solomon the 
author has adopted the usage of the Haggadist rather than of the historian. Solomon has 
ceased to be the historical king of Israel, and has become the representative of a class. He is 
“ the Preacher,” not the monarch of Israel. 

The Book of Esther, which next follows, brings us back once more to the records of 
history. It is a book which has been especially dear to the Jewish patriot. During the 
middle ages, when the property and life of the Jew were constantly at the mercy of a fanatical 
mob or a mercenary king, it was a delight to him to hear the tale of the great deliverance that 
had once been wrought for his countrymen when they too were in similar peril. But to the 


BOOK OF DANIEL. 


61 


Christian reader the book seems of lesser value. Not only is it distinguished by its exclusively 
national tone, it is further distinguished from the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures by the 
absence from it of the name of God. It reads more like an extract from the state annals of 
Persia, which has been edited by Jewish hands, than like those other biblical narratives to 
which the historical books of the Old Testament have accustomed us. It is, in fact, another 
instance of the way in which the Spirit of God made use of all the various forms of literary 
work that were current in the ancient eastern world, and how what is termed inspiration was 
not confined to one particular class of books. The breath of God “ bloweth where it listetli,” 
and in spite of the narrow limits within which our narrow prejudices might wish to inclose it 
we are taught the lesson that “what God hath cleansed” we may not call common or unclean. 
When the Book of Esther was written we do not know; all we can say is that it must 
have been after the accession of Ahasuerus or Xerxes the son of Darius Hystaspes, and the 
names of some of the chief personages mentioned in it — Esther, the Babylonian Islitar, and 
Mordecai, the Babylonian Marduka or “ man ” of Merodach — may perhaps indicate that 
Babylon, the second capital of the Persian empire, was the place in which it was composed. 


XIII. 

The Hebrew Canon places the Book of Daniel next in order to the Book of Esther. Like 
the latter, the Book of Daniel occupies an unique position in the Old Testament. It is a 
double work — double in language, in matter, and in character. Partly written in Hebrew and 
partly in Aramaic, it is also partly a history, partly an apocalypse. Over its date and the 
authenticity of its history heated controversies have arisen. The present writer believes that 
they have been settled finally and decisively by the cuneiform monuments. We now possess 
the annals of the last king of the Babylonian empire, and the history of the fall of his power 
officially composed just after it had taken place; we possess, moreover, the proclamation of Cyrus 
in which he justified his conquest of Babylonia and gave permission to the Jews and other 
exiles to return to their homes, as well as inscriptions of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylonia, 
in which the rise of Cyrus is described. Furthermore, a long series of contract tablets exists, 
recording the commercial transactions of the trading community of Babylonia, and extending 
month by month and year by year from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to that of Darius. The 
dates are always given in them, and we thus have a complete and very exact chronological 
register of the Babylonian empire. Though the name of Belshazzar occurs upon these monu¬ 
ments, he never became king. His father, Nabonidus, was the last of the independent 
monarchs of the Babylonian empire, and Nabonidus was an usurper, not descended from the 
royal house of Nebuchadnezzar. Of “ Darius the Mede ” there is no trace, and we learn from 
the inscriptions that there was no siege and no capture of Babylon. The city opened its gates 
to Gobryas, the general of Cyrus, after the defeat of the Babylonian army near Sippara in the 
north. 

In the earlier chapters of the Book of Daniel we have, in fact, Haggadah and not history. 
They are a parable for our instruction, not a text-book for the historian. That unwritten 
history which has always been so popular in the East, and in which all historical perspective is 
lost and historical personages of various epochs are brought together, is the history that is 
reflected in them. The Book of Daniel introduces us to a new development of Jewish thought 
and literature, which was destined to become predominant as time went on, until it had ban¬ 
ished all history, in the modern sense of the word, from the writings of the Rabbis. The 
keynote of later Jewish literature is the so-called Haggadah, and the beginnings of Haggadah 
are to be found in the Book of Daniel. 


62 


EZRA AND NEII EMI AH. — E SDR AS. 


In the case of the Book of Daniel, therefore, the verdict of criticism is also the verdict of 
archaeology. We cannot regard it as a record of contemporaneous events. Criticism assigns 
its composition to the age of the Maccabees, and the existence of Greek words in it seems to 
imply that this conclusion is right. The conclusion is further confirmed by its place among the 
Hagiographa. The Jewish Church has excluded it from the prophetical books, and in spite of 
the prophecies it contains has placed it among the books which, on account either of the late¬ 
ness of their date or of the time when they first became officially known, were the last to be 
admitted into the Canon. The same testimony is borne by the numerous additions which were 
made to the narratives of the book. It was unprotected by the reverence which gathered round 
the older literature of the country, and stories like that of Susanna, or of Bel and the Dragon, 
were freely added to it. 

The last four books of the Hagiographa are again different from those that precede them. 
In Ezra and Nehemiah we have important contributions to Jewish history. They are the 
sources of our knowledge of the events which followed upon the return from the Exile. In the 
Jewish Canon they form but a single book, and their present division cannot be traced back 
further than the time of Origen. They appear, indeed, to have been compiled by the same 
author. Large portions of them have been copied word for word from the lost works of Ezra 
and Nehemiah, who, like the compiler, made use of official documents. In one place we have a 
narrative that must have been written by a contemporary of Zerubbabel, and a long passage in 
the Book of Ezra 1 is in the Aramaic language. It is taken from what has been termed the 
“ Aramaic Chronicle,” parts of which have been translated into Hebrew in other passages of the 
book. The compiler must have lived in the age of Alexander the Great, since Jaddua, the last 
high priest mentioned by him, 2 was a contemporary of the Macedonian conqueror, while Darius 
Codomannus, the last king of Persia, is called “ Darius the Persian,” as if the Persian mon¬ 
archy had already ceased to exist. 

The chronology of the two books presents insoluble problems, which are complicated by 
the fact that the chronology followed by Josephus, the Jewish historian, is irreconcilable with 
any solution of them that can be proposed. On the one hand, Zerubbabel and his contempo¬ 
raries— Joshua the high priest, and Haggai and Zechariah the prophets — are placed under the 
reign of Darius I. 3 With this agrees the genealogy of the high priests in Nehemiah xii, 10, 11, 
as well as the express testimony of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah themselves. On the 
other hand, in Ezra iv, 23-v, 5, their period is transferred to the reign of Darius II., a century 
later, while Josephus makes Sanballat, the adversary of Nehemiah, a contemporary of Alexander 
the Great, and asserts that Manasseh, who was driven away by Nehemiah, 4 was a brother of 
Jaddua and the founder of the temple at Samaria. The authority of Josephus may indeed be 
discounted, as the document he followed is plainly erroneous in other particulars. But the 
apparent contradiction in the Book of Ezra remains. We know, however, that it must admit 
of an explanation; even skeptical criticism does not impugn the historical trustworthiness of 
the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah and allows that the materials of which they are composed aTe 
derived from contemporary sources. The fact is an instructive one, as it is a warning against 
the assumption that because there are seeming contradictions in our records, the records are, 
therefore, untrue. 

Another problem which is raised by the two books is their relation to the apocryphal First 
Book of Esdras. The First Book of Esdras takes the place of the Book of Ezra in the Canon 
of the Septuagint and consequently in the Canon of early Christianity, and there are scholars 
who consider that its text is preferable to that of the Massoretes. At present the question is 
still in dispute. 

The compiler of the Books of Nehemiah and Ezra, or of the First Book of Esdras if the 

1 Ezra iv, 8 to vi, 18. 2 Nehemiah xii, 11, 22. * Ezra iv, 3-6 4 Nehemiah xiii, 28. 




JEWISH AND GREEK CANONS CONTRASTED. 


63 

Canon of the Septuagint is preferred, was doubtless the author of the Books of Chronicles. 
These latter close the list of the Hebrew Hagiographa and may be described as the history of 
Israel, and more especially of Judah, written from a ritualistic point of view. A comparison of 
them with the Books of Samuel and Kings makes this very clear. It is the temple and its 
services, the priesthood and the law, which occupy the chief place in the writer’s mind. The 
history of the northern kingdom is almost entirely ignored ; it was only in Jerusalem that the 
true and legitimate center of Israelitish religion was to be found. The details of secular history 
lose their importance when regarded under such an aspect, and become of value only in so far 
as they bear upon the history of the Jewish Church. Ritual, rather than history, is the 
primary consideration of the Chronicles. At the same time he makes use of historical docu¬ 
ments which are not quoted elsewhere in the Old Testament and thus introduces narratives into 
his text some of which have been verified by archaeological discovery in spite of the doubts that 
the “ higher criticism ” has thrown upon them. Some of these documents have to do with the 
genealogies which have been attached to the work on account of the necessity of determining 
who were genuine members of the Jewish community and church. The date of the work, 
which in the Hebrew Canon forms but a single book, is fixed by that of the Books of Ezra and 
Nehemiah. That all three works belong to the same author may be considered certain from the 
similarity of language, style and contents that exists between them, as well as from the fact that 
where the Books of the Chronicles break off, the Book of Ezra begins. 

A survey of the Hagiographa brings two facts plainly before us. One of these is the 
extreme caution displayed by the Jewish Church of Palestine in regard to the admission of a 
book into the Canon of Scripture. It was long and keenly debated whether Ecclesiastes could 
be regarded as a book that “ soiled the hands ” by reason of its sacred character, and a similar 
discussion arose over the Song of Solomon. Even Esther and Proverbs were objected to, the 
one because the name of God is not mentioned in it, the other on account of the contradictions 
it was alleged to contain, and each had to fight its way to recognition. The second fact which 
results from our survey is the contrast presented by the Law and the Prophets to those tardily 
received books of the Hagiographa. No controversy ever arose about their sacred character, no 
question was raised in regard to their authorship, their claim to authority was never contested. 
Instead of being relegated to a class apart, at the end of the Canon, they were from the first set 
in the forefront of it. It has been reserved for modern criticism to reverse the verdict of 
Jewish antiquity, and to place the Law in a lower and later position than that of some of the 
Hagiographical books. The very fact seems to bring its own condemnation with it. 

XIV. 

The Greek Canon of the Alexandrine Jews disregarded the distinction which had been 
made between the Hagiographa and the other books of the Old Testament, and added to them 
several others most of which are now included in the Apocrypha. Some of these books — Tobit, 
Judith, the stories of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon — are examples of Haggadah in its 
full development. Of claims to historical credibility they possess but little, and such as they 
had have been set aside by archaeological research. The First Book of the Maccabees, on the 
other hand, is a historical work of great value, and takes up the story of the Jewish nation 
where it is dropped by the books of the Hebrew Canon. For the history of the great persecu¬ 
tion under Antiochus Epiphanes, which extirpated the growing spirit of Hellenism in Judah, 
and brought the people back to a consciousness of their mission in the world, it is our best, if 
not our sole, witness. In the Second Book of the Maccabees, on the contrary, the Haggadic 
element once more makes its appearance. History is subordinated to the inculcation of a 
religious lesson, and we can no longer trust the historical accuracy of the details. 


BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA. 


64 


Of the other Apocryphal books, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom 
of Jesus the son of Sirach are by far the most notable. They belong to the same class of 
literature as the Book of Proverbs, and breathe the same exalted moral tone and the same 
fervid belief in the wisdom and righteousness of God. The divine wisdom of which they treat 
finds its prototype in the Proverbs of Solomon and prepares the way, through the writings of 
Philo of Alexandria, for the conception of the Logos of St. John. The spirit of wisdom, which 
taught mankind religion and virtue, was shown by Christianity to be the eternal Word which 
became incarnate in the person of Christ. 

The hook of Ecclesiasticus was translated into Greek, as we learn from the prologue, by 
the grandson of the author in B. C. 132. The Wisdom of Solomon probably belongs to the 
same period. They thus stand about midway between books like Tobit and Baruch, which were 
composed toward the close of the Persian epoch, and the Second Book of Esdras, that strange 
Apocalypse which seems to have been written in Greek about A. D. 90.* Naturally, therefore, 
it was not included in the Septuagint any more than the Prayer of Manasseh or certain other 
works which laid claim to a certain kind of Scriptural authority but have never become canon¬ 
ical. Among these we may mention the Book of Enoch, which is quoted in the Epistle of St. 
Jude, verses 14, 15, and enjoyed a large amount of favor in the Coptic and Ethiopic 
churches. 

The Book of Enoch is an example of the apocalyptic literature which had so wide a circu¬ 
lation in the Jewish world in the age of our Lord, and it has been shown to be the work of 
different authors, the original "nucleus having been written in Aramaic in the second century 
B. C. Other apocalypses of a similar nature were the Ascension of Isaiah, which professed to 
describe the martyrdom of the prophet by being sawn asunder, 1 and a vision of the future which 
had been revealed to him; the Assumption of Moses which is supposed to be referred to by 
St. Jude 2 ; and the Revelation of Baruch, in which it is pretended that the destruction of Jeru¬ 
salem by the Romans was foreseen by the ancient Hebrew prophet. Of a wholly different 
character are the eighteen “ psalms of Solomon,” which it would seem were originally written in 
Hebrew not long after the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey (in B. C. 63). The psalms declare 
that the Lord is about to avenge the sufferings of his people upon the foreign invader, and 
predict the speedy appearance of the Messiah. They illustrate the tendency of the time to 
ascribe the literary compositions of the age to the older inspired writers of Israel, and thereby 
to secure for them a currency and an authority which otherwise they may not have acquired. 
But the existence of all" this mass of pseudonymous matter affords a full justification for the 
caution displayed by the Jewish Church of Palestine in its reception of the canonical books. 
It is a caution which a belief in the indwelling and guiding spirit of God alone renders 
explicable. 

The period which saw the growth of the Apocrypha saw also the rise of the two great 
parties of the Jewish Church, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. But their history belongs 
rather to the age of Christ than to that of the Old Covenant. The Sadducee, for whom the 
religious development of Israel began and ended with the Mosaic law, and the Pharisee, avIio 
ranked orthodoxy of belief and practice above justice and mercy, were alike unable to recognize 
the change that was about to pass over the Jewish Church. It was among the self-denying and 
more spiritually minded Essenes that the first victories of the new faith were to be won. But 
to describe them would carry us beyond our scope. With the closing of the Old Testament 
Canon the Jewish Church had completed its work. A few more years and the exclusive Church 
of a single people had to make way for the Catholic Church of Christ. Israel after the flesh 
passed into the spiritual Israel of the whole world. 

In tracing the history of Israel after the flesh there are three facts which stand out in 


1 Hebrews xi, 37. 


2 St. Jude, 9. 



HEBREW HISTORY AND LITERATURE. 


65 

relief. One of these is the indissoluble connection that exists between the history of the Hebrew 
people and the history of the Hebrew Scriptures. The one depends upon the other; we cannot 
understand either of them apart. It is the Old Testament which tells us of the divine mission to 
which Israel was called, and it is the history of Israel which guarantees and verifies the truth of 
the Old Testament. We cannot deny the truth of the history and retain our old faith in the 
Canon of Scripture, or deny the trustworthiness of the Canon and yet accept the history which 
it records. If the larger part of the Mosaic law is indeed the invention of the exilic age, we 
shall have to change our whole conception of what is meant by the “ Word of God.” 

But, in the second place, we have learned how varied is the literature of the Old Testament 
and over how long a space of time it extends. In both respects it offers a marked contrast to 
the books of the New Testament. It represents, in fact, all that is left of what was once the 
literature of a highly cultivated nation. Law and history, poetry and drama, ethics and phi¬ 
losophy, as well as prophecy — that unique product of the Hebrew race — are all to be found 
within its pages. There is no dead uniformity of subject, of thought, or of expression. On the 
contrary, the books of the Old Testament are as diversified in manner as they are in matter. 
Each writer preserves his own individuality; and to argue from the usage of one to that of 
another is no more justifiable than it would be in the case of two modern authors. The length 
of time, moreover, covered by the Old Testament writings increases the differences observable 
among men. With the progress of the ages came new words and idioms, new conceptions, new 
enlargements of spiritual view. The work of a contemporary of David was not, and could not 
be, similar to the work of a contemporary of Ezra, whether linguistically, intellectually or 
theologically. The history of Israel is reflected in the history of its sacred books. 

Then, thirdly, that history is seen to have been a slow education for the mission which 
Israel was created to fulfill. Little by little the Israelitish people were sundered from the 
nations that surrounded them and made to realize their own peculiar place in the world. But 
they were never taken out of the world; never, except for the brief interval of their wanderings 
in the wilderness, were they planted in hermit-like isolation out of the reach of other men. 
From first to last they formed part of that great stream of civilization which we call the history 
of the ancient East. Babylonia had been their nurse, Egyjff their schoolmaster, and in their 
home in Canaan they found themselves the bridge and highway between the two great powers of 
the oriental world. In the shock of conflict with the Assyrian empire the northern kingdom 
perished, and Judah was left alone to represent the older Israel. But Judah, too, passed away 
as an independent nation, and in the Babylonian Exile its character was transformed. The 
Jewish Church arose out of the ashes of the ancient monarchy, while the nation itself became 
but an insignificant part of the great Persian empire. Though for a brief space the Maccabean 
victories once more gave to Judah temporal power and political independence, their effect was 
but transitory. It was not as a kingdom, but as a church; not as a nation, but as a religious 
community, that Judah henceforth affected and influenced mankind. 

The spread of the Greek language through the conquests of Alexander of Macedon, 
followed by the empire of Rome with its common government and code of laws, caused Judaism 
to permeate the whole of the civilized world. Jewish colonies and synagogues were established 
from one end of the Mediterranean to the other, and gentile proselytes joined them in the 
imperial city itself. Judaism was fast becoming a universal religion. But as long as it 
remained Judaism it could be universal in name only, not in reality. For such a transforma¬ 
tion it was needful that it should cease to be the Jewish Church, and that it should become that 
kingdom of God which prophecy had discerned in the far future and of which the Jewish 
Church was the antetype and forerunner. In the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth the Old 
Testament was summed up and fulfilled. The Jewish Church had accomplished its work, and 
like the Jewish monarchy of an earlier day was called upon to make way for a newer and better 


GENTILES RECEIVE GOD'S MESSAGE. 


60 

order of things. Henceforth there was to be no distinction between Jew or gentile, no antagon¬ 
ism between the chosen people to whom God’s revelation had been made and the world in the 
midst of which they lived. The two streams of Jewish and gentile history had united at last, 
and the message of God which had been revealed to Abraham in Canaan and to Moses on 
Mount Sinai was now made known to all mankind. 



THE REVELATION. 


I 












/ 

MANUSCRIPTS, BY SAMUEL IVES CURTISS, D.D. 


CHAPTER I. 

TRADITIONALIST AND MODERN CRITICAL VIEW OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

E VERY student of the Old Testament has at least two questions to ask concerning it: (1) 
Whether we have the books which were first given by inspiration to the Old Testament 
Church? Hence the subject of the preservation and transmission of the original text of the 
Old Testament should have a place in the present work. (2) What is the origin of the Old 
Testament hooks ? As there is much diversity of opinion with reference to the answer which 
should be given to this second question, it is thought best simply to indicate the views of the 
traditionalists 1 and of the evangelical modern critics in the barest outline. 

Those who hold the traditional view regarding the origin and composition of the Old 
Testament books and the evangelical modern critics may be said to agree in the belief that God 
is in a special sense the author of the Old Testament, that “ Men spake from God being moved 
by the Holy Ghost.” 2 They also agree regarding the underlying purpose of the Old Testa¬ 
ment, that it is God’s revelation of his will, concerning the way of man’s salvation and the 
Savior who was to come. They differ in their estimate of the concessions which the Spirit of 
God has made to human limitations growing out of the age, country, manners, customs, and 
literary habits of an ancient oriental people. The traditionalists postulate, not only a perfect 
revelation of God’s purpose, but also a perfect vehicle in the original autographs of the Old 
Testament. This school maintains that where there are allusions to science, while popular 
language is used, the science of the Old Testament is fundamentally accurate, and if there is 
any seeming discrepancy between the science of the present day and that of the Bible a more 
profound study will show that the ultimate science and that of the Bible, stripped of its popular 
dress, will be found in full accord. So, too, they maintain that the inspiration which God gave 
his servants enabled them to write correct history, and that, aside from any changes which have 
taken place in the text during the 2,400 years of its transmission, a study of the monuments 
will show that all the details of the Old Testament history, as far as we can follow them, are 
correct. This school affirms that if the science and history of the Old Testament are not 
substantially accurate in every particular we have no sufficient guarantee for the claim that 
God has made a revelation of himself to his people in the Old Testament Scriptures. Practi¬ 
cally, inspiration is postulated not only for the doctrines but also for the facts of the Old 
Testament, hence the claim is made, not only for perfect moral and religious teaching, so far as 
the needs of the age were concerned, but also for perfect science and history. Hence every 
allusion to the authorship of books in the Old and New Testaments is considered as a declara¬ 
tion of God’s Spirit with regard to the men who wrote them. The words of Christ, “ For if 
ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings 
how shall ye believe my words ? ” 3 is considered as the testimony of the omniscient Savior with 
reference to the authorship of the Pentateuch, and as final for every true disciple. While the 
traditional school fully admits the duty of Christian scholarship and investigation, it maintains 


1 This term is used for want of a better. 


2 II. Peter i, 21. 


3 John v, 46-47. 







EVANGELICAL CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


69 

that the results of criticism can only be to confirm the words of Christ and the New Testament 
writers regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch. The same position is taken with respect to 
the authorship of the second part of Isaiah. As one of the New Testament writers 1 quotes 
some of the words of this prophecy as from Isaiah, this form of quotation is considered the 
testimony of inspiration regarding the authorship of the passage quoted and practically of the 
whole book. 

There are certain decided advantages in the position of the traditionalists as indicated. It 
is easily understood by all. Indeed, the first thought of almost every Christian who reflects on 
the subject, is that the Bible should not only be infallible in doctrine, but also in science and 
history. It is this conviction which has been, to a great extent, the inspiration of recent 
researches in Palestine, Assyria, and Egypt. The article by Professor Sayce shows not only 
the antiquity of literature among some of the Semitic peoples, but also the verification of the 
Old Testament at important points, and the early character of its sources. 

In view of the discussions now in progress regarding the Old Testament with reference to 
its science, history, and chronology, the Church is studying the Bible as never before. Some, 
like Eli, are anxious for the Ark of God, and in view of the great expansion that is given to 
scientific studies in our colleges and universities many fear that the youth who are engaged in 
these studies are liable to be alienated from the book which has been honored and loved by their 
fathers. Evangelical modern criticism, however, claims to restore the Old Testament to its place 
of honor and confidence in the minds of all classes of Christian students by giving a faithful 
view of its origin and composition. While holding, as has been remarked, that God is the real 
author of the Old Testament, it claims that the questions of origin and composition, on the 
human side, are legitimate objects of the freest and deepest research, and that no genuine 
reverent criticism can cast a cloud upon God’s Word because as God is truth, the truth 
regarding his Word can only reflect honor upon it. They claim to find, that while God is the 
author, through his Spirit, of the Old Testament Scriptures, he did not change the literary 
habits and characteristics of the people to whom he gave his revelation by any miraculous exer¬ 
cise of his power; that while his truth was supernaturally revealed, the men to whom he made 
the revelation were not like stenographers, to whom we dictate just the words we wish to have 
written, or even like a messenger, old or young, to whom we repeat a message that is to be given 
verbally to some person. 

These analogies fail to state the case as apprehended by the critics. It must rather be 
represented as follows: the message itself is of an entirely religious character. If its religious 
purport depends on a historical fact, like the resurrection of Jesus, that fact must be estab¬ 
lished, but the credibility of the witness is not affected by his being an Oriental, unacquainted 
with modern science, history, and literary methods. Such a man, if converted, trained in the 
Christian religion and possessed of God’s Spirit could become an effective instrument in the 
conversion and salvation of his fellow-men. Indeed he would undoubtedly be a better instru¬ 
ment of the Spirit, in this respect, to his own people than the greatest scholar living. His way 
of apprehending and presenting Christian truth, while not differing in any essential particular, 
would greatly differ in details from the presentation made by a graduate of one of our univer¬ 
sities, who would utterly fail to reach an oriental people until he had become familiar with their 
life. This may serve as an inadequate illustration of the position of the evangelical school of 
modern critics. They believe that God’s Spirit inspired Israelitish lawgivers, prophets, and 
psalmists to a degree and in a way which was not granted to any other religious writers of that 
time or of any time outside of the Biblical books; but they maintain, as the result of their 
investigations, there is no evidence that God revealed the facts of history, or protected these 
writers from error in every detail in their use of history. They maintain that more competent, 


Matthew iii, 3; compare Isaiah xl, 3. 



70 


DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


honest writers could not be found in that age. They reject the theory of pious frauds set forth 
by Kuenen, 1 but they hold that a critical study of the Old Testament shows it was not God’s 
purpose to reveal history, or to utter prophecy for its own sake, but rather to give his truths to 
his servants and enable them to set forth the measure and kind of revelation that he designed 
for a given age. Therefore, he left them free in their literary methods, and in their use of 
materials, although guarding them in a supernatural way from error in the statement of divine 
truth. A remarkable illustration of this is furnished when we compare certain accounts which 
we have in the early chapters of Genesis with those which are found in the parallel Babylonian 
texts. In one case we have a simple, noble, monotheism, which can only have been insured by 
the controlling power of God’s Spirit, in the other there is gross polytheism. 2 

The evangelical modern critics assert that they are not afraid of any scientific discoveries, 
or of any crititical researches. They regard a science which rules God out of his universe, and 
a criticism.which rules him out of the Scriptures, as without foundation. 

From llieir point of view the utterances of Christ and the New Testament writers regarding 
the Pentateuch 3 are not the verdict of inspiration with respect to the authorship of the five 
books of Moses, but simply the popular language of tradition, which neither raises nor decides 
the question, who wrote these books. They consider that in the Pentateuch, the lawbook of 
the Israelitish nation, we have a growth extending through many centuries, that this collection 
of laws received its name from Moses as its most distinguished founder and representative, who 
is said to have written parts of the Pentateuch, 4 rather than the whole as we now have it; that 
all pentateuchal laws, whatever their age, may be considered the material outgrowth of Mosaic 
laws and in their oral form as assigned to him. 

It cannot be affirmed that evangelical modern critics disagree fundamentally with the 
traditionalists regarding the authorship of the Old Testament books, aside from the Pentateuch 
and Joshua, Isaiah, and Zechariali, although they differ in assigning a late date to such books 
as Joel, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel. There may be said to be substantial agreement among recog¬ 
nized adherents of all evangelical schools with reference to the origin and purpose of the Old 
Testament books aside from those mentioned. Criticism certainly does not weaken the position 
that we have the very books which were first given to the Old Testament Church. 

1 “ The Religion of Israel,” Vol. Ill, p. 75. 

2 Compare Genesis viii, 21, “And the Lord smelled the sweet savor,” with Smith, ed. Sayce, “The Chaldean Account of 
the Genesis,” pp. 286,.287, “The gods smelt the savor, the gods smelt the good savor; the gods like flies over the sacrificer 
gathered.” 

3 E.g., Matthew xix, 7; Mark vii, 10, xii, 19; John i, 45, etc. 

4 Exodus xvii, 14, xxiv, 4-7, xxxiv, 27; Deuteronomy xxxi, 9, 22, 24. 



CHAPTER II. 


OLI) TESTAMENT BOOKS NOT MERELY A SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. 


OOME might suppose that in the Old Testament we have simply a survival of the fittest. It 
LO is evident that an extensive Hebrew literature has perished, of which not a single trace 
remains, except as afforded by the quotations in the Old Testament. 

The ancient world had poets before it had historians or any written literature. Snatches 
of poetry have been preserved in the Old Testament, which had evidently been handed down 
from mouth to mouth and never committed to writing. Lamech’s “ Song of the Sword,” 1 
Canaan’s Curse and Shem’s Blessing , 2 and Jacob’s Blessing , 3 are examples. But we also have 
a quotation from the “ Book ot the Wars of Jehovah,” 4 and two quotations from the “ Book of 
Jashar ,” 5 which, it we may judge from these specimens, were poetical books in which ancient 
songs, long preserved by memory, were inscribed. We are not informed as to the character of 
these books, although we may infer that they were more secular than religious. Doubtless there 
were other books ot poetry whose names have not come down to us, because no quotations from 
them have been preserved. 

We also find evidences of an extensive historical literature. Joshua is said to have written 
in “ the book of the law of God.” b What he wrote was certainly not our Book of Joshua. 
There is no further mention of such documents until the time of Samuel . * 7 From the time 
of David there seems to have been a recorder or chronicler in connection with the royal 
family until the extinction of the Southern Kingdom . 8 There was also probably the same 
officer in connection with the Northern Kingdom. Subsequent to David, with the exception 
of Solomon, for the details of whose life “ The Acts of Solomon ” 9 are referred to, after a short 
summary of each reign, there is a standing reference to the “ Chronicles of the Kings of 
Judah ” or of Israel . 10 These, of course, are not our Books of Chronicles, which were written 
by one author long after the Exile, but the books prepared by the royal recorders, and which 
were doubtless profane history, detailing the military and other exploits of each king. The 
chronicler also refers to a number of works as authority for his narrative of Jewish history, as 
the words of Nathan, the words of Gad , 11 the prophecy of Aliijah, the visions of Iddo 12 the seer, 
the words of Shemaiah , 13 the commentary of the prophet Iddo . 14 

The reason why these sources have perished, while the Old Testament books have been 
preserved, is not accidental. We may say that the sources, so far as we can judge, were mostly 
of a secular character, hence when the nation that gave them birth passed away, they passed 
away with it. On the other hand the books of the Old Testament are of a distinctly religious 
character. While having their roots in the religion of Israel, through their forward look to the 
Messiah, they have a world-wide significance. Hence, although Israel went down as a nation, 
it survived as a religious people, and as the medium of God’s revelation of redeeming love to 
the world. No one can study the Old Testament in a sympathetic spirit without finding in it a 
well-ordered preparation for the coming of Jesus Christ, nor do the established positions of 
modern criticism affect the essence of this preparation. They simply change the point of 
view, but every believer may see Jesus Christ coming into the world , 15 in the Old Testament 


1 Genesis iv, 23-24. 2 Genesis ix, 25-27. 3 Genesis xxvii, 27-29. 

4 Numbers xxi, 14, 15. 5 Joshua x, 13 ; II. Samuel i, 18-27. 8 Joshua xxiv, 26. 7 1. Samuel x, 25. 

8 II. Samuel viii, 16 ; I. Kings iv, 3 ; II. Kings xviii, 18. 3 1. Kings xi, 42. 10 1. Kings xiv, 19, xv, 7, 23-31. 

11 1. Chronicles xxix, 29. 12 II. Chronicles ix, 29. 13 II. Chronicles xii, 15. 14 II. Chronicles xiii, 22. 

15 Compare John i, 9 (Revised Version, margin). 



72 


JEWISH TRADITION—ANTIQUITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 


Scriptures, whether lie be traditionalist or modern critic. This fact, which admits of demon¬ 
stration, not only sheds light upon the question as to the divine authorship of the Bible, but 
should also comfort those who deprecate any essential change of view as to the origin and 
composition of the Old Testament hooks. 

From the human side, w T e must consider the origin of these hooks as providential. So far 
as the Old Testament, as a whole, is concerned, w r e may he assured that each book, whether 
prophecy or history, grew up out of some historical situation, and that each psalm was largely 
the record of some spiritual experience. But God’s purpose, which man faintly apprehended, 
was that these books should live. As the revelation of his word they were endowed with 
immortality. 

In our English Bibles, we have no indication of the process by which the various parts of 
the Old Testament were received as Scripture, except in respect to the Law. Nor do we get 
any help from Jewish tradition. Indeed, anyone who has even the most superficial acquaint¬ 
ance with the Mishna and Talmud, and sees liow T the whole body of oral tradition, as well as 
written law, is assigned to a revelation received by Moses from Mount Sinai, will he persuaded 
of the need of caution in dealing with Jewish tradition, which frequently originated in Jewish 
speculation and is merely an opinion. 1 Hence, modern scholars are almost unanimous in 
dismissing the Great Synagogue as a factor in our investigation regarding the formation of the 
Canon, because the details regarding it have been found to be the invention of a comparatively 
late Judaism. But we have a solid historical foundation, which hardly any critic questions, 
with regard to the formal promulgation and adoption of the Pentateuch, substantially as we 
now have it, in the time of Ezra, 444 B. C. 

Even those critics who deny that Moses was the author of the entire Pentateuch do not 
necessarily deny that it contains most ancient documents. Nor does the modern critical theory 
require that we should suppose there is a single law in it which the writer did not accept as 
transmitted from the hand of Moses, nor a single narrative which he did not accept as actual 
history. The theory of an invention of laws for the benefit of a favored class, which were 
assigned to Moses, and of the fabrication of history is simply the result of a realistic view 
which cannot appreciate the development of oral law and tradition by the side of written law 
and history. 

According to the traditional theory, the entire Pentateuch had existed since the time of 
Moses, but had been neglected, forgotten, and even lost 2 during long periods. According to the 
modern critical theory the book known as the Law of Moses 3 was of much less extent and was 


1 The so-called oral law of Moses is preserved in the Mishna. In Pirke Aboth I, we read: “ Moses received the [oral 
and written] law from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the 
prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue. These said three things: ‘ Be careful in judgment, and establish 
many disciples, and make a fence about the law.’ ” Compare the whimsical reasons given in the Talmud, Baba Bathrci, 15a, b, 
on the basis of the comparison of quotations in Job w r ith those in other Old Testament books, for suggesting the authorship 
of Job in the days of Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, of the spies, of the Judges, of Ahasuerus, etc. The Rabbis get at this 
last result by quoting Job xlii, 15: “And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job,” and calling 
attention to the search made for beautiful women in the time of Ahasuerus (Esther ii, 3); for the same reason it is suggested 
that Job was written in the time of David because they sought among the beautiful young virgins for a nurse (I. Kings i, 3). 

2 II. Kings xxii, 8; compare Succa 20a: “ The Tora was forgotten by the Israelites, until Ezra went up from Babylon and 
reestablished it.” 

3 When we read the designation Torath Moshe — “Law of Moses”— (Joshua viii, 31, 32; I. Kings ii, 3; II. Kings xiv, 6, 
xxiii, 25), it does not necessarily indicate a legal system of the same extent as our Pentateuch. A good illustration of this is 
furnished by Gesenius’ “Hebrew Grammar,” of which twenty-five editions have already been issued. The first as well as the 
last edition is known by the same name. The oral teaching of Moses would be called Torath Moshe. The passages, therefore, 
that we find in the historical books and in Malachi iii, 22, which mention the Law of Moses (Torath Moshe) cannot be quoted 
as proving the existence of our Pentateuch at the time in question. They do prove, however, what we cannot doubt—that 
there could have been no Pentateuch, so far as we are acquainted with the history of Israel, without the divinely appointed 
mediatorship of Moses. He received a revelation which entirely changed the character of Israel’s history. He is as truly the 
creator of the Pentateuch as Christ of the Gospels. His name and influence grew after his death. His teachings were rever¬ 
ently treasured up. The stream of written and unwritten law which flowed from him rightly bore his name. Unwritten laws 
bearing the impress of his spirit, modified to meet the needs of later times, especially in connection with the reestablishment 



jd'm m)50 


jnwn pis psrwn 


wsc w'ppc ?n »>pvj jpn >3 v ’-pirni? pppj*p 3 ipd ptpii nre 
?mp j’3c ?*>6 *3*3> *3*37 fpm i'top ’3d i3Pn *3 ip 631*3 
iPJIP-F*? eOo'T>C13 *30 oo )7’’P03 *3Pp7 3’P* *3’? *3013 *7P3t 
|33> 5c>p P3 lip? P07D ?7tP3 |’7)p 13) TCP 3P30 730 ?7fP 750 
>i j*6iij*3 6i? ipi*pri : rbii7j 
: »3)Di )P$'PPP ii J3) 7P6 7JT07 6k 


>i)3 )ii)J 13*6 0 6p7)3 ?*3 "p37 
P’3P) »P3oi )37>3) rjpp 13 POP! 
'’370) : ?iPP)P 73D? iP -J73? )P)|S 
PJP7 : <jp*?? ip ?Wi 13713) i-jjj 
:')P)i? '30 jo 6i) i;»3? b6 7jp ?*i 
|f>3P P3t3 y73P7 J)’3 *P’*p 63’? 
p’b 6?’ 6io jn6? 'm3 j6sp p3o> 
•P3P '3’P |’7)RP? pp»73 0333) 63)’ 

, 3P , j nr od ob :iip? p6 )ppp’ 6i? 
P73D7 o 6 :pipii nsnpipiii *3*P3 
OPPBli '*3P0Pi 6 )p.6tp* 6?p 
JP 6)?0^ *]7Pii 1P)3 70’’ : 6077$ 
IPP7P ?J3 )3’37 POP ?BPD 0*737? 
»633r3B :')pP? PP7i )PP7?P’30?) 
P’ltPO'sip? 0P)6 ’P’3 p?p? )P)63 


iD 031D ’36ip> P’731 ’JP • P’piP’ 
O’PB P3B3 ’3B P’33 )*? pD O 6*33 
?’P7’i0’7p?W : |I7P6? 0*77$ 
?*P7’> P’llP ’P’3 ?’PC’ »7?B kpiPI 
kpip*)'i0)7’3 633P3 )’>3) ?*c6* ’P’3 
'13 3)’6 O’i’P F)7 :?*p73 ’P’3 ?i)J3 I' 
7)7 O’i’P O’DPIB? ’P-J ?P7pp»? 
J^iP ’P*3 7 "P3 3)’6i 07p 6)?) pP6 
•iop'pio *730 ?oio 3*P6) O’? 630 
0*7*0? 7*0 ?P3P *75D O?’30pi?p 
3*0 P»P3’P)3*p t )P3pi Jtpi )7P60 ’3733*73 
fpJ)P30 i6’37 ?pi&7pp6)?0 pp6?’P7’ 
7P06 ?i)J3 733 73)33 ’P’3'*P7’ 7P6 
o>*77 ’p*3 67u? o»7)bp6 ’p*: 

?)*6 7*pi: o)7)op6 7p6 7pp 
'P) 3J?7)3 *P3 P)71 JPpi ?*»'t 
.t )’33) "jip’i6 pp*P)P)ij)3 
p?3 P)3P7>3? <J>D P’7P6 ?’i P’67 
FD73I : OOP 7)7 63’o')ppi pnp6i 
*37)3 j3’603 # P6 )’idP) )P6)330Db 
y ’p)D3'3)P0y)’CPP 77D) )P7)PI POP 

IpjPt; : 4?o? <j)0 7P ?op pp’j p 
IP7p oi)3D O’DPIB 73D) )7PD 3P3 
fe70*i ?pip? ?P) >730 3P3) 7BP) li 


') ISpn D O 7*0 ’K1 J17N3 0*n3)f3E) ')mS ’73iy 
3nn 13 »* D'nata'a iapna w ^ non O'nsia 
noto nno n’S ca j SSjj ihtxonSt p’3) nso 

37 70K 3*|7’ ’3*n ’3^)3 ’703 0*3 0’37 t"*m’7 
•now SS33 «m in'jnnS 730 3p;** 73 Knx 
Vnia n*31’737 n?K 37 7dn 3*n* *3*n nn3 nn 

730 U7P* T7 ,( 77 ’OpD miH’ ’37) , ?tS,’373) 

3ti’) no*D p*33 nin kbt 3*n* nin r^3*n min 
p7p*7xo *Kn 7 *ko *37) min 73orv) I r,y 
7ifo n’S njnBT n’b *i*3’o Kinn n’S 7op *to 
*37) 7ifn jo n’U3 ,| 7);’‘7) *n)S o*3 njntvt nSi 

7*K0 *37) ’N73D ’0”p ))H K3’i7 0*7)0^ 7’n40 

n’*7Rpaj rv 1 ? r^tjo p7X3 pnjiDT nmi 1 ? ’73 v‘ 

0’6’33 ?PJ)63?’plP’ IP6 0P1’ Wd 7B'K O ' , n3VK0 KJ1.7 37 70P<7 P<J)n 3773 
?? 6io ?3*PP ()P^3 3)P3 )i3? f 3 )*S>*'’3n3n 30)’ ')t»ox'n otyoolpj 

fpp OP) ”P*3 ?’?li36 I3’I)P ’P’3 L . t: 

Ninn p’Ki p 7 N 3 j’njionini 1 ? naty) imw 

•37 70K J3ri)’ ’37 '0K7 (JH)’ •fi773 l 7 T\'b *^3’0 

1*03)01’13’3 S31 DBmBf 70*70 ’P*tni’ [3 Jl^Diy 

K*7K *DJ ’3H \'K ’30*7 H’*7 y3’0 ’DJ p’KI p7K3 

n **7 xpaj n’* 7 1^*30 p 7«3 puim nini *7 * 73 ty 

’ ,37 'n«B7 H73ty 7B)K° *)0)’37 OHI *]0)*37 OmO 

*J7’K1 p7K3 '’DJI0 nim*7 ’73t£7 n)n)*7i7Br 70*70 

7B>N *7*7 70X7 U'*p*7 ^’773Sn’*7 ’J)3’0 NIOH 

y«3 7i3** nroS Kin 1173 onpn i 1 ? 7 dk n73i3 
\3inB7 ynn* o’K’3j bv j7io ^37 Mrfrnavar 
tbv ooen n’i73’ SKpm’i n*ol* aobo) ^)0i3 

t ,nvpo(ou, l . TO r6.po.^«»* a ^ n l nwnWsn ” Dn P , ' mn ’ 1OT ' , _ . . 

3)*6 7"pi: op)op6 ?p6 7 ppo od? t> n*?nn nw pm’ 7 k rn o’koj .703 ywri 7^1 nemo n*7nn 737;*i3m oy 

op’P’j t^emsy^n*? n’D7p’*7i H3’oi oioj)ni73ii’«3in|n i*7K)lan mm3 )K33njero’N’3j 
3m 6*? - n**7 373n nn o’r^’33 *])0 okSoi n*73i om ’3t^*7D) n’731 on 01 nT7Ki3a 3’n37 p*3 

buprm n»D7*o onp n*i’i3* *730 037*0 70m »t*k n*07p’*7) ri’7)n*7 nano**?) in’nna 
nn3*7 *7Kp?n’) Ka37)n n ,( 7)3 n*D7*) 'aoSm n’3’0 00*707 po k 13*73 n*yi3’S n*07p*S 
: Knonab Knonai Ka37in*7 KaoTmjaooo xnona n’Sio .7*1)137 NnDna .no’oi'aamn 
nSooi St^oi nia*p) o*7*t3n 7’t3nSnp ’*71301 ovki o’*7nn 7001 nn 0*3103 S«3p7*o 
**7innK k®* 73 3i’K‘?'’D7p^n v n mro’oo 3 i*k 70kt jkd*?) o*o'n *7371 K7ij*7noi^ 
no*? |3ro»Vin mnnK n**7n’K7 may7i3 x*n mania ’oannp’*7nno k* 7 Kniaimaa 
rwo jono mi nin3i3ini nriTto Nin -jno empnS mnr nn naoo Kah3 nn no v «npj 
nbo 3no Skido minaiy ppioa naiotyi nao ono i*i3in* 3 i*ni bj?* 73 nenai naoona 
*3*70 7’ bp pl3N7n 07N 7’ bp D’JpT.77i3J* *7’ by 0**70P7 730 3n3717 0171 0’DaiB7 
•7* *?y> ' *)DN n* bp i |mn* n* *7yi }o*n n* *?yi ni30 *r bjn o.773k * 7* bpi pvt 


?*? 060 TOO )D’P’? ?’? p7IW OTO PPOP 31P* *3’? *7P3 'Ip 
!07)PP *7?3 O’PPD OOP ?’i 0*53 |3 06 J*7)PP 6io )3’p? 
iss r"?i ?37? nr? ot v"st *P”p n? 63 t j’7it-aa ?*pp OlT 
p-»6? 067 7J3'*P;iP )’?C li ?’? 0)03 ?7)p 730 7aap 7?i pi6? 

: p;ip ??)p 7300 . 

?’? POP *P*3 3)*6 7p6'7 

*6?) 7 pi) 7r6p *6 p p" 6 i 
•app7 ?*? ?cp *p* 37 7ao ?*3iJ 6aji 
6i *0367 i ; J 31*6 730 303 "OP 3*53 
:>**737 6r*DP7* 
r"6) p’i'ppp 6i 
7p6 7’P P’3033) 

parnio p*7p6do!Cp j 7)6)D7 
?3*p?i )?)'70 7)7 ?3PP 6j'0 P’1P6 
”]3 7f*6 3P3 DP301J)) 0)7*03 

P n f» ?io P’7P6 6l?) P)7'D |P)6 7'P 

3»*6i rorsi ?•? ?J>j ’iu?p 7"pi» 

’7?3)3P3’3? OIOP7 *7)6)<j)D3i 
|*3)03 'p6 |”3PP 6iro oi 
7PP |)J*3) 0’7ip j-)67pp)?7’0crp 

)67p-i ja*7p673 pa*a ?•? o? p’jt 
bo oio) 07i3P o'ri6 p7ip 73DJ 
6i7 P?)'*ppu ’p)33 iso 0)0) *6 p 
p’D3?i 6io 0)OP ’ion 7 p 6 isrs 
1303 |3i7 C7DP r*7) ?pio *7373 
3P3 7)7 jPpi 7P67 OOP O’i’P ’7?3 
»P3 3)’6l OOpi ?70P’7* 5 p )73D 
77b) 73)5 0*3pi *376 ’7’ b 3P33 
>3P3 6io 0*6 6 pd?) 6i?’i6) i»’i6i 
: ’iop 7 p6 

p"6ip’7p6 ?*3 P '67 myn£) 
'*7p6 ?*3 P*6 *P3 31*6 
k7o* is7 p*7p6 pny pnpf> »6?7 i J > 
>730 p'sp? i?3 6i7 7*pi'3’67 7IP) 

Vpi : oiip? jp )77joi 6k 


: *133)0? *P*3 ?.P’?0 pr? J3) D?*P’3 

')7P6o'n3713 SP^opi *>7&p *7’ ip 
P f7 P)373 J>p , 3 j.pjj ptJ ,, 3p } vvt) 0 ,^p t 

0”))i? JP |JP)7*> |P’?) <JD6 J)J3 
»pi)J J)J3 po67? 076 ’p :0*77)0P? 
o76ypn np* ?P’i> ‘J’3 , p) 6? 
*P 063 p73 air *P : 


yji j 1 f jj Jl* 9 ppp . . . 

MP*?i i*30P rn*? w : p703'*7)Ptp 700 7 p 6 bi MJpi'bp pdp ’») *• o?736 ?i *P7i6? jp* 6 jrpy*7p673'?!^6 *o:')pip? b> 

*’ r ,p,p 1 : jtp)7*i P33pi J1P)7* *J?I 

A FACSIMILE OF FOLIO 14b OF BABA BATHRA OF THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD, 
AMSTERDAM EDITION, 1G44, FROM THE LIBRARY OF PROFESSOR CURTISS. 

In the central text, four lines from the bottom, begins the famous passage: “ Moses wrote his book, and the section about 

Balaam and Job,” etc. Slightly enlarged from the original. 


72a 


NATURE AND VALUE OF PROPHECY. 


enlarged at different periods until substantially the final edition was issued by Ezra. The 
narrative of his labors in its introduction shows that from 444 B. C. it became a most powerful 
factor in the life of the people. It was no longer a book of which there were perhaps one or two 
copies, but we may believe that through the scribes many copies came into existence. Hence 
we find religious observance and private life substantially in harmony with its precepts from the 
time of Ezra, so far as we can trace the history. 

W e come now to the second division of the Old Testament, the “ Prophets.” Prophecy is 
oftentimes spoken of as revealed history. This is substantially the view of the traditionalists. 
It involves the necessity of proving either that everything foretold in the Old Testament will 
literally come to pass, or at least in a spiritual sense. From this point of view there can be 
but two opinions regarding prophecy : (1) That the predictions of the prophets will have an 
objective reality, even in all the details of the Messianic kingdom ; or (2) that the fulfillment 
of these predictions is to be real, though spiritual, as in the case of the Revelator’s description of 
the new Jerusalem. 

The theory of evangelical modern critics does not differ essentially from the latter view. 
It insists, however, that prophecy was first a living voice addressed to a real congregation of 
men and women, before it became a book, designed for future generations, and that the power of 
Old Testament prophecy even now is not so much in its character as divine foreknowledge, 
as in its ability to reach the conscience of men in every age. At the same time its portrayals 
of the future have as much objective value as the visions of the seer on Patinos. They are 
preeminently ideals, drawn in magnificent and shadowy outlines, rather than exact literal 
descriptions of future events. 

After the Exile prophecy began to die out until with the prophet Malachi its voice was 
hushed. So long as an Isaiah or Jeremiah was raised up to speak to the people and teach 
them through the living voice, the writings of the prophets may have had no extensive influ¬ 
ence, but when prophecy ceased and the history of the people proved the divine mission of the 
prophets, there was a demand for their writings. This demand was particularly felt during the 
Exile and especially after the official introduction of the Pentateuch by Ezra, when a new 
order, the scribes, became a power in the religious life of the people. 

The prophets had been preachers of righteousness. Neither their promises nor their 
threatenings, in the divine plan, were considered absolute predictions, for their object was to 
bring the people to repentance and to avert the impending doom. Jeremiah expresses this 
clearly when he reports God as saying: “At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, 
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, 
concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought 
to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a 
kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I 
will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them.” * 1 The same principle is illus¬ 
trated in the preaching of Jonah: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” 2 
This message led to repentance, for we read: “And God saw their works, that they turned 
from their evil way ; and God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them ; and 
he did it not.” Jeremiah too had the repentance of his fellow countrymen in view when he 
dictated his prophecy to Baruch. 3 The rebuke and reformation of their Israelitish contempo¬ 
raries was the great work to which the prophets were called. 4 In the effort to bring about this 

of the Jewish state under Ezra, may have been finally embodied in the original collection which was known as the Law of 
Moses. Such a theory does not require us to suppose that Ezra, who “ was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses” (Ezra vii, 6), 
invented new laws, which he ascribed to Moses. We have rather to suppose that he codified laws, written and oral, which 
were known as the Tora of Moses, and that in this he was as truly inspired as the great lawgiver. 

1 Jeremiah xviii, 7-10. 2 Jonah iii, 4b. 3 Jeremiah xxxvi, 1-7. 

* Even Tsaiah vi, 10, does not furnish an exception ; compare i, 18,19, ii, 5, etc. 



THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS. 


72 b 


reformation these inspired preachers used promise and threatening. The prediction of the 
birth of the Messiah from a virgin 1 was divinely evoked by Isaiah’s effort to dissuade King 
Aliaz from having recourse to the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III., in his fear of the Syro- 
Ephraimitic league. So whatever may be our theory as to the authorship of Isaiah xl-lxvi the 
main and primary object of the book is to prepare the Babylonian exiles for a return to their 
native land. It is true that the predictions thus called forth have a far wider sweep, but 
we shall fail to understand them if we do not regard them as first addressed to an actual 
congregation with a special end in view. 

It is necessary that we should fix this fact firmly in mind, that we may properly 
understand the second division of the Old Testament, called in the Hebrew Bible “the 
Prophets.” This embraces the “Former” and “Latter Prophets.” The Former Prophets 
include Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; the Latter Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
and the twelve Minor Prophets. An examination of the historical books named shows that 
they were not given for the sake of history, but history is used by the prophetic writers just as 
promise and threatening are used by prophetic preachers to produce the reformation of the 
people. 2 This object stands in the foreground more than the use of exact history, or than 
definite fulfillment. The chief thing, then, in prophetic writing and preaching is not mere 
historic accuracy, or the literal fulfillment of every detail of prophecy, but the effort of the 
prophets is to lead their contemporaries to repentance. The prophet’s use of history, consid¬ 
ering the limitations of ancient writers, is singularly good; and there are instances of startling 
fulfillments of prophecy, but the most remarkable thing is that the prophet, whether as 
preacher or historian, builds better than he knows. While conscious that he is especially 
inspired of God to speak and write, we are not to suppose that he is aware of the important 
place that his prophecy is to fill in the Old Testament, or in the history of Christianity. He 
may have foregleams of the permanent significance of his ministry, 3 but he is simply a laborer 
on the building of the Old Testament. God alone is the architect. A divine power is 
controlling the prophet’s preaching and writing, and in a supernatural way is making his 
ministry, as inspired author and preacher, a preparation for the coming of Christ and 
Christianity. This is not natural, but supernatural, and it is a more conspicuous evidence of 
the presence of the divine Spirit in the prophets than any amount of scientific history, or 
of detailed foretelling of future events. God is indeed able to cause his servants in their 
preaching to use nothing but exact history and not to promise or threaten anything which is 
not literally to come to pass. Yet we can say with equal emphasis, that even if such a use 
of history and prophecy cannot be proved to have insured entire accuracy of statement and 
fulfillment, as the critics claim, nothing less than divine power and foreknowledge could have 
so consistently controlled the Old Testament Scriptures as a preparation for the coming of 
Jesus Christ. I emphasize this point because it has a most important bearing on the origin and 
authority of the “ Prophets,” or the second division of the Canon. 

The “ Former Prophets ” are largely based on ancient documents, 4 but the motive of their 
authors, as has been said, was not so much to convey a mere chronicle of the times, for which 
they so often refer to official records, 5 as it was to instruct the people from the examples of the 
past. They wished to accomplish the same results through history as through preaching. 
Indeed, they made a homiletical use of history. There is every reason to believe that they 
were honest in their use of materials, but they’doubtless employed whatever sources were at 
hand which seemed to them credible ahd which were adapted to their purpose. It is certain 
that the materials they employed, and the way in which they employed them, furnished a 

1 Isaiah vii, 14. The Hebrew alma signifies maiden ; bethulah is the specific word for virgin. 

2 Examples are furnished in Judges ii, 11-23, iii, 7-12, iv, 1-2, and often; compare II. Kings xvii, 7-23. 

3 1. Peter i, 12. 4 1. Kings xi, 41. 5 1. Kings xv, 29, and often. 



72c 


THE THIRD PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 


fitting vehicle for the transmission of God’s revealed truth to the age with which they had 
to do. 

It was, then, this character of these books, which were regarded as a practical application 
of the law and as containing so much religious history and fulfillment, that led the Jewish 
congregation, at least 150 years after the adoption of the Pentateuch as Scripture, to receive the 
“Prophets” also, both “Former” and “Latter,” as books full of warning and instruction to the 
people. It was thus that the second division of the Canon was undoubtedly formed. It was not 
in any sense a mere survival of the fittest Hebrew literature, but histories and prophecies had 
been prepared by prophets, named and nameless, under the direct and conscious superin¬ 
tendence of God’s Spirit; not at first as parts of the “ Prophets,” for this was the design of the 
Divine Spirit, rather than of the authors, but being thus prepared under such superintendence 
they came to be recognized by the Old Testament Church at their real value, though not as we 
can prove at any known date. 

As we have seen the distinctive character of the first two divisions of the Old Testament is 
indicated by their names, “ Law,” “ Prophets.” The designation of the general and miscella¬ 
neous character of the last division, “ Writings,” is not less explicit. It includes: Psalms, 
Proverbs, Job, Canticles, 1 Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
Chronicles. These may be further grouped as follows: (1) The Book of Psalms which is the 
hymn book of the ancient Jewish Church. This collection, which, even according to Calvin, 
was probably not complete until the time of Maccabees, and hence was at least 800 years in the 
process of formation, beginning with the time of David, must have been subject to much 
rearrangement and editing before it was finally divided into five books. (2) Another group of 
writings is found in Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. These are an outgrowth of what is known 
as the Wisdom Literature which had its origin in the time of King Solomon, and which 
continued until long after the Exile. (3) Canticles and Lamentations may also be connected 
together as examples of the joyful and plaintive elements of Hebrew poetry, although perhaps 
the combination of Job and Canticles as examples of dramatic poetry is even better. At the 
same time, they form an admirable contrast in their subject matter, for Job represents a man 
as subject to a supreme test, and Canticles a helpless maiden as withstanding the seductions of 
the most powerful monarch of Israel and remaining true to her shepherd lover. (4) Ruth and 
Esther furnish points of contact in their sporadic character and in the contrast which is 
furnished between the tender idyl of Ruth and the fierce tragedy of Esther. (5) Daniel has 
no special connection with any book of the Writings. We are not to suppose that the Jews 
made any mistake in placing this book in the third division of the Old Testament. It would 
seem to indicate their conviction regarding its late character. (6) Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chron¬ 
icles are really the work of one author, who rewrites the history of Israel only with reference 
to the Southern Kingdom and from a priestly point of view. 

It is thus easy to see how the miscellaneous character of the books in the third division of 
the Old Testament should have led to the choice of the name Writings as a designation for the 
collection ; how the Jews should have assigned an inferior grade of inspiration to it, and how in 
the Septuagint Version apochryphal additions have found a place in connection with the books 
of this division. And yet the Old Testament would be deprived of its most precious jewels if 
this division were struck from the Canon, for we have no more spiritual utterances in any part 
of the Bible than are found in the Psalms. Hence the divine wisdom is manifested in the 
gathering and preservation of these books, which, as a whole, bear abundant evidence of the 
inspiration of the Divine Spirit. We are to lay emphasis on the total impression made by this 
collection rather than upon seeming incongruities which appear here and there. 

The question may now be raised how we know that we have the original thirty-nine, or 


1 Another name for Song of Solomon. 





n’t* 


' npanrathtM ip’-ir^n’oWW? ora’ «VoWW 

5 *^t»?3r!n i w NT’x^^iiop 

3Tf? AWP ,. 0031 jjhn? tin? 

1 . t rnrv acv^nSr» mn* ngp r»vn tv rrirt 

np? o^ wp i^fca-jp ti'Ojrn-irQB ' T^onirvot^rv 

ra^’n^jon u^xntrvp'o » mnrqn^^qn 

F-3«p7^5W Sppjpo’opo » fWowa 

, nnptroapnoiSJTonr.-i^ ri'rip •iorp^q? 

. ; vb o^oapp/o on>*opS*?^.PK£3 

ninySa^w' qrin.vno’n' : ^VooS^^^n^.-yi’n 

* tttrawj^' 3%Or$iorK?n 

3pjf?nt«^p IlfVM 1 ’? » pcrpp?^^ o^Worr^o’nnn 

D'rrr^o^rt ill i 10’oo3K"Wi*npfinn 
yfl&pP "nop IT “*r?0 g? ip^TOJirT j<S nirr up to 
WjnifcntwPs arogB-urkfci ' t ' opT^Klb»K qnjnipofconff? 
ifirvfinioWa^ n^vi&cpV,^ * o^^nuifO 5rm5^brnaj^; 

i 5 V^'tty s4>an'? q$k 

* T ignsgjwcpjE npsnpaV^ *" ’ opan pyffi re o(p&'ip?onio3 

* wnc^iopT# rnnbinpornn^jc'T * wn afljm* DpjB nin^inpapn^a 

i . ' . "pntcTO^i^ bi<n^r»pyfiJ* 

f oposip co 1 ^ Dp^ninT^p’ ‘ o^notfopopo np^Tp?*, 

1 oiscppS{fu }rnrvVo>ooftrotfn • t > pKio’p#rv£? np^nPNO’pvg 

i nnfinn rW’Tp S aaoi nn^^?o»n$n*c> 

: 1 * * i 

Nnx pri rny uiny obw’■vo* r : < K^ip;* ’ops ’Si^nbtTD 

* , onnpuyiSw ppprwvftjrr 'n?£flnoWnpSPjj* snpxrvn^opoi 

1 ’p^bpjninp? ^nop*? 'vi)ry&' .* jptftrv ,L ” STO* nrro'KpfibpK* : 

ornn jM'yptfp nvrpsS -fryi^c: Ttpp njpri* p£0?p pyf'X rysb'&p) pi* ?n '3 
OTSCnxnb? yx ’ t . P^P^T^ri 

snpxntnrb^n * hpjtyc&rg ,iy?yg 

r^Anpipb ‘njrpp^jnp!, * WV?vtjp^ ob^xrvpSrp?, 

i cnpxrnri’oj^ji npPnprpaTj^snpipp.ni^^^rp^PlP?^^!^?^?^ 7 ^^ 


A 


FACSIMILE OF 
FOURTEENTH 



A LEAF OF CODEX CURTISIANUS II. A SPANISH MS. OF THE 
CENTURY, FROM THE LIBRARY OF PROFESSOR CURTISS. 

Ps. cxii, 6—cxvi, 1-7, with the Massora on the margins. 

Slightly reduced from the original. 





721) 


THE OLD TESTAMENT RECOGNIZED BY CHRIST 


according to the Hebrew reckoning twenty-four, books. 1 2 We cannot put too much dependence 
on the account given in II. Maccabees as to the formation of a divine library by Neliemiah, 3 
for the source is not in a book that is entirely trustworthy. We cannot infer that the books 
of the Old Testament were all collected and acknowledged as of binding character in the time 
of Nehemiah. This is a common view, but its only foundation is the shifting sand of unsup¬ 
ported hypothesis. The earliest clear testimony which we have regarding the three divisions of 
the Old Testament is from the grandson of Jesus Sirach in his prologue to the book written by 
his grandfather. This clearly shows that in the year 132 B. C. there was a threefold division of 
the Old Testament such as we have in our Hebrew Bibles. We cannot say that the collection 
had been rigidly closed at that time, although we suppose it was essentially complete. 

Philo, who wrote 20 A. D., quotes from all the Old Testament books except Ezekiel, 
Daniel, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther. His neglect in quoting from 
these books does not indicate that they were not in existence, but simply that he had no need to 
make use of them. 

Jesus Christ definitely refers to three divisions of the Old Testament as the Law, the 
Prophets, and the Psalms, 3 and the New Testament writers make use of all the Old Testament 
hooks, except Ezra, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Esther. Christ himself in another way seems 
to indicate the entire Old Testament Canon in a reference to Abel as the first martyr mentioned 
in the first hook of the Hebrew Bible, including all the prophets to Zechariah, mentioned in 
Chronicles, the last book of the Hebrew Bible.' 1 At least this quotation seems confirmatory 
rather than accidental. 

The Jews did not officially recognize the Old Testament as Scripture until the council at 
Jamnia about the year 90 A. I)., but the fact of highest importance for the Christian world is 
that Christ and the New Testament writers recognize substantially our Old Testament as Scrip¬ 
ture. This fact, whatever may be proved by the critics, as to the origin and composition of the 
Old Testament books, is the inspired judgment of him whose authority the Church receives as 
supreme. 


1 The Minor Prophets were reckoned as one book. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra (including Nehemiah) as each 
one. This leaves twenty-four books. It is often supposed that the number twenty-two, corresponding to the number of 
letter's in the Hebrew alphabet, was secured by reckoning Judges and Ruth as one book, and Jeremiah and Lamentations as 
one, but this is not certain. 

2 II. Maccabees ii, 13, “And the same things also were reported in the records, namely, the memoirs of Neemias; and 
how he, founding a library, gathered together the books concerning the kings and prophets, and those of David, and epistles 
of Kings concerning holy gifts.” 

3 Luke xxiv, 44. 4 Compare Luke xi, 51, with Genesis iv, 9,10; II. Chronicles xxiv, 20-22. 




CHAPTER III. 

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


TVTE come now to the languages used in the transmission of the original text of the Old 
Testament books. These books have been preserved to us almost entirely in Hebrew; a 
few sections only being in Aramaic, commonly, but erroneously known as Chalclee. 

The Hebrew language belongs to the Semitic group of languages, which found their home 
from the Mediterranean on the west to the Tigris and beyond on the east, from the mountains 
ol Armenia on the north to the coast of the Arabian wilderness on the south. The term 
Semitic comes from Shem, who is called the ancestor of the Shemites, or Semites; but Semitic 
languages were also spoken by people who were not of Semitic origin. The ancient Babylonian 
and the Assyrian languages were Semitic; the Arameans, commonly called Syrians, whose 
capital was Damascus, spoke a Semitic language; the Phoenicians on the Mediterranean 
seacoast, the Philistines to the south of them, the Moabites, the Edomites, the Ammonites, and 
the Arabians, all spoke Semitic languages. Hebrew and Phoenician were simply dialects of the 
same language, and it seems certain that Hebrews, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites could 
easily understand each other. There is never any indication of an interpreter being employed 
between these peoples, and we may believe they could communicate as freely as Swedes and 
Norwegians do to-day. 

A study of Hebrew clearly shows that it was not the primitive language as some used to 
imagine. Indeed, a large class of roots seems to indicate that it passed through a monosyllabic 
and mimetic stage. Its grammatical structure represents at least centuries of development. 
The best suggestion of the original Semitic language, from which the various tongues mentioned 
are derived, is found in the Arabic. It is only a suggestion, however, and not the original 
■language itself. Modern grammatical study of Hebrew has shown, in connection with great 
simplicity of construction, remarkable power and beauty of expression. 

As a written language we cannot show that we possess any memorials of it before the time 
of Moses. None of the sister languages in Palestine have left monuments as ancient as those 
found in the Hebrew. The oldest is the Moabite Stone from the ninth century B. C. 1 No 
Phoenician inscriptions have been discovered from an earlier date than about the sixth century 
B. C. If, however, we turn to Assyria we find a document, according to Hommel, that dates 
from the fourth millennium B. C. 

There are twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet. All these are consonants, although 
four of them came to be employed to indicate vowels before specific signs of vowels were 
invented by the Massoretes. The mistaken opinion once prevailed that the vowel signs, in 
accordance with Jewish tradition, might be traced back to the time of Ezra or even to Moses and 
as received from Sinai. 2 This position was regarded as essential, both by Jews and Christians, 
to the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament, for without the vowels one set of 
consonants might have several different meanings. But the truth prevailed. It was proved 
beyond a peradventure, that the vowel points were invented during the time of the Massoretes 
(600-1000 A. D.) when the traditional meaning of the words was in danger of being forgotten. 
So long as Hebrew was a living language there was no real difficulty about understanding the 
meaning of words even when written only with consonants. While the vowel signs, invented 

1 For a representation and description of this stone see p. 541. 

2 Graetz, “ Geschichte der Juden,” Leipzig, 1877, Vol. IX, p. 214. 

73 



74 


HEBREW AND ARAMAIC TEXTS. 


by the Massoretes, have a fixed value, the pronunciation of them differs greatly, so that it is 
quite likely that the modern Jew, whether Polish or Spanish, would have great difficulty in 
understanding Isaiah. 

The alphabet in Hebrew has passed through various stages. There is more difference 
between Hebrew letters, as seen on the Moabite Stone 1 and on the Siloam inscription of the 
time of Hezekiah, 2 than there is between Old German and modern English. While some 
scholars are inclined to derive the Hebrew alphabet from the ancient hieroglyphics of the 
Assyrians, more favor its derivation from the hieratic characters of the Egyptians by the 
Phoenicians. These hieratic characters were formed by the Egyptian priests from the hiero¬ 
glyphics of the Egyptians, which consist of outlines of various natural objects. These outlines 
can still be traced in the hieratic characters by the practiced eye, although the transition to 
letters is complete. These letters are thought to have been still further transformed by the 
Phoenicians, so that they resemble the characters which we find on the Moabite Stone. These 
characters, more or less modified, were doubtless used in the transcription of the Old Testament 
books until after the time of Ezra. Their essential character is still preserved in the Samaritan 
alphabet, and this may be the reason why the Jews finally introduced the square characters, 
found in a modernized form in Hebrew Bibles and manuscripts, as the Hebrews were probably 
unwilling to use the same characters for writing as the Samaritans. 

The consonantal form of the text was easily read by the Jewish scribes on account of their 
entire familiarity with the original until the knowledge of Hebrew began to decay. Then 
vowel letters were introduced and finally special signs were gradually invented by the Masso¬ 
retes to indicate the vowels, the place of the tone syllables, the punctuation and the musical 
cadence to be observed in the worship of the synagogue. While most of the books of the Old 
Testament were written in Hebrew, after the Exile certain passages were written in Aramaic. 
This language goes back to a remote antiquity. One Aramaic word is preserved in the parting 
of Jacob and Laban. 3 Even Jacob himself is called an Aramean. 4 In the course of time 
Aramaic became the language of commerce, like the French language a hundred years ago. It 
was closely related to the Hebrew, although it could not be understood by the common people in 
the time of Isaiah.” 5 As the language of interchange, with the Jews and their enemies, after 
the Exile, the king of the Persian empire sends and receives letters in the Aramaic language. 
These are quoted in the Book of Ezra. A part of Daniel is also composed in the same 
language. After the Exile and in the time of Christ, Aramaic had completely displaced the 
Hebrew as the language of the country. Jesus himself, so far as the New Testament furnishes 
evidence, spoke in Aramaic, which is inaccurately called Hebrew. 6 When he said Talitha 
cumi, “maid arise,” 7 Ephphatha, “ he opened,” 8 and Eli, Eli, lama sabachthanif “My God, My 
God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 9 Aramaic words were on his lips. From this prevalent 
use of Aramaic arose the necessity, as we shall see later, of an Aramaic interpretation of the 
Hebrew passages read in the synagogue. 

1 See p. 541. 2 See plate on opposite page. 3 Genesis xxxi, 47. * Deuteronomy xxvi, 5. 

5 II. Kings xviii, 26. 6 John xix, 13, 18. Gabbatha and Golgotha are both Aramaic forms. 7 Mark v, 41. 

8 Mark vii, 34. 9 Matthew xxvii, 46. 




THE SILOAM INSCRIPTION, REPRESENTING THE FORM OF HEBREW LETTERS IN THE TIME OF HEZEKIAH. 














CHAPTER IV. 

HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT. 


Y\7 HEN we consider the written transmission of the Old Testament text we discover that we 
' ' have no Hebrew manuscript which can he positively proved to he older than the “Codex 
Petropolitanus ,” preserved in the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg, which dates from the year 
916 A. D. and contains only the Latter Prophets. At the first blush it may seem strange that 
while we have manuscripts of the New Testament dating hack to the fourth century of our 
era no ancient manuscripts should be in existence of the Old Testament. We shall find that 
there are good reasons for this, and that after all it is not a serious element in the problem, if 
we are content with an essential inspiration of the Old Testament. All the converging lines 
of testimony, as drawn from what we know of the origin of the Old Testament books and 
their transmission, will, I think, show that while we have abundant evidence of the essential 
inspiration of the Old Testament, we are not in a position to prove more. 

We shall divide the history of the Old Testament text into three periods: that of the 
scribes, 444 B. C. to 70 A. D.; that of the Talmudists, 70 to 600 A. I).; that of the Massoretes, 
600 to 1000 A. D. 

To begin with the first division of the Bible, the Law, we have tAvo first-class AA'itnesses to 
the condition of the text of the Pentateuch in the first period. One of these dates back at the 
latest to the time of Ezra. 1 It is the Samaritan Pentateuch. The enmity which existed between 
the Hebrews and the.Samaritans excludes the idea that the Samaritan text has been affected by 
that of Hebrew' manuscripts, hence it becomes an independent AA'itness to a text, which in all 
that is vital, barring such changes as have been made from the standpoint of the Samaritan 
religion and many minor differences, is one and the same in all essentials with the Hebrew. 

Another witness within 200 years of the time of Ezra is found in the text of the Septua- 
gint, or Greek version, which was prepared in Alexandria to meet the wants of the JeAvish 
congregation there in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphia (285-247 B. C). 2 While this text has 
been subject to disturbing influences, especially since the time of (Origen 185-254 A. I).), AA'hose 
efforts at improving it by placing different versions in parallel columns only served to corrupt 
it, as these versions in the process of time became more or less mixed, it is in all essential 
respects a mirror of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch as it existed about 250 B. C. The critic 
does, indeed, find some points of difference betAveen the Hebrew, as Ave have it in the Massoretic 
text, and as it existed in the ancient text from which this Greek version aatis made, especially in 
the arrangement and codification of laAA's in Exodus xxxa'-x1, which easily give the impression 
of an edition, differing from that in our Hebrew Bibles, and at least of some freedom on the 
part of the ancient Jewish Church in dealing with the text, although its essential character is 
in no respect affected. 

With regard to the remaining t avo divisions of the Old Testament, the Prophets and the 
Writings, AA'e have only the witness of the Septuagint version, which Avas prepared by many 
persons, and was not completed until about 150 B. C. While this translation is of varying 

1 The traditionalists maintain that the Samaritans inherited the Pentateuch from the ten northern tribes whom they 
succeeded. 

2 The interesting fable regarding the translation of a magnificent copy of the Law for the Alexandrian Library, under 
the fostering care of Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the suggestion of Demetrius, by seventy-two Jewish scholars, on the Island of 
Pharos, need not detain us. AATiile the name of the version, Septuagint or Seventy, came from this story, it may first have 
been written down after the Law had long been orally interpreted in Greek to Alexandrian Jews in their synagogues. 


74A 






* 


1S6 


D{os. It,3 -JoJl.6 


Wttl>t£jj 1 


l - 

-WTThvnKb^ii 

*irili ! ibHTSj7Wiai 

tV » liuZt 

3KTOH1 

^•rcntfn 

jibrrf"^ 

^i# ; -.., _. ... 

f&p&& 

>%fc> 


SgftWtrfD 

u^tSn^bNlm 
»tpBrbre< 

—- - yyASj htr%h\ V 

A^TljWDTTylJ 

l^V'Vtfnbr?! 

. btf^ra? 



UjS j»6 j®»5 -mb ifrs jo TiiWwi H>it&nd«6 Jwi J((6 




jJmro 


Wfiiniyt\a\ti 

»:ittWWWII^ 


A FACSIMILE OF A LEAF OF THE CODEX PETROPOLITANUS, 916 A.D., FROM A COPY 
IN THE LIBRARY OF CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

Reduced about one-third from the original. 




THE SEPTUAGINT — THE TALMUD—THE TAR GUMS. 


75 

degrees of excellence, due perhaps in some cases to the translators’ imperfect knowledge of 
Hebrew, and while some passages are omitted, as in Samuel, 1 and the prophecy of Jeremiah 
appears with a somewhat different arrangement of chapters, and is abbreviated in the Greek 
version, so that there are 2,700 words less in Greek than in our present Hebrew text, and on 
the other hand there are additions, 2 there is no question that we have a witness who would be 
admitted in any court as corroborating in every essential particular the language, facts, and 
doctrines of these Old Testament books. Indeed, our Lord and his disciples honored this 
translation, which was current in Palestine, by making the great bulk of their quotations from 
it. In view of the differences which exist between this version and the Hebrew, and the agree¬ 
ment in all essential respects, we may perhaps get light as to the relative value which we should 
put on the spirit of the Old Testament as distinguished from its letter. It may be conceived of 
as bearing the same relation as the soul to the body. 

In the second period of the transmission of the text (70-600 A. I).) we have at least eight 
witnesses — not to introduce others — all more or less independent of each other. Of these the 
Talmud, which is composed of the “ Mishna ” (edited 220 A. I).) — repetition of the Law—in 
the center; and the Gemara or commentary, which long existed orally before it was written 
down in its Babylonian (365-427 A. I).) and Jerusalem (390 A. I).) editions, is through its 
quotations an early and valuable witness to the essential character of the Old Testament books. 
Its testimony in this respect is not affected by such variations as may be found in it, due to a 
lapse of memory or even to the existence of a different text, while its directions with reference 
to the transmission of the Law, as we shall see when we come to consider the manuscripts, 
show a conscientious anxiety to preserve all the characteristics of the consonantal text. 

The Targums, especially the Targum of Onkelos, 3 which is limited to the Pentateuch, are 
also valuable witnesses, although on account of the theological bias, which is found in all of 
them, and their character as paraphrases, and in some cases almost as commentaries, with the 
exception of that of Onkelos which is usually a literal translation, they need to be used with 
the utmost caution. They are in Aramaic, and, so far as they run parallel, existed for centuries 
as the oral interpretation of the Law. Everything was done to impress the people that they 
were not the Scripture itself. The interpreter, called Meturgeman, who stood beside the reader 
of the Law might be blind or wear ragged garments, as if to throw reproach on his office, and 
his interpretation was not permitted to be written down lest it should be regarded as Scripture. 
But in the Targum of Onkelos, and the first Jerusalem Targum, aside from the paraphrase, the 
language of the Pentateuch has been preserved in such a way as to show that there must have 
been a fixed text. The Targums on the other divisions of the Old Testament, however, are of 
far less value for determining the text. 

Three Greek translations from the Hebrew text, made in the second century, deserve 
mention here as independent witnesses, although only inconsiderable fragments of them have 
come down to us. Nevertheless, they are of importance, because they tend to confirm the 
general characteristics of the Hebrew original. Discontent with the Septuagint version, owing 
to a reaction against it, because it became such a weapon against Judaism in the hands of 
the Christians, 4 prepared the way for the slavishly literal rendering of the Jewish proselyte 
Aquila (first half of second century A. I).). Theodotion (before 160 A. D.) attempted to revise 
the Septuagint in accordance with the Hebrew text. Although his knowledge of Hebrew was 
very superficial his testimony is also of value for our purpose. To this we may add the 
translation of Symmachus, made in the same century, who mediates between the slavish 

1 The Septuagint omits I. Samuel xvii, 12-31, 55, xviii, 1-5. 

- E. g., the LXX. changes Genesis iv, 8, so that it reads: “And Cain said unto Abel, his brother, let us go into the field.” 

3 “ Edited about the end of the third century A. D.”—Deutsch. 

4 “The day when the Septuagint was made was considered a day of distress like the one on which the golden calf was 
cast, and was actually entered among the fast days.”—Deutsch. 




cun ALLeLu 
(J ONFiTecr»MiCfivjo 
fUWUOCAUMOMfKIflUJ ' 
ADMUMCfAUlNnkCfN 
WOffAAflVW; 

CAN IAIfflflf/AUltfH 
NAkkAIfOMWIAMULAPJ 
UAli UJlAUDAM IN11W NO 
MlNUCOnuf; 
LAfUIVkCOkQUAPWW , 
riUWDWW QUAUIHDNM 
nCOMflAMAMlWlQUAf 
UIlfAClMUUfSlMttk; 
CTtMiNIOnMlkAiUtUM 
(lU^UAfOOT fNCDigA 
flu? imiDlClAOklSHUS; 
SfWfNABkAHAMWkUUi 
fill/IACOMUCWlUr 
] rrtJ>Nft>?NOWk INUKl 
UfkUTfkkA/UDK/AmW; 
fniMOkftmiUM.fCUl.UU 


TfUAMfNWVl Ul/Ul 
(lUODMAWDAUfUNMiUl 
CCWtAATfOWtf: 
quooiJi^rojunADAikA 
HAW niUAAM(NIlJVJ) 

mswc- 

ettlAIUillUuDiACOJlN 
flsAKifryw HlfNAHfi, 
INTWIAMfWIUAfTfkNW/' 
OlClN5miDAB0i;NM. 
CHANAAM fUNJCUlUM 
HfWDIIAWUtfTICAf 
CUMftt/NIWUMflLOJkf 
UirAUCtfMMf'niWCOlAt 
IMf; 

e VIM kAMMAUWIDf 
(tUTUUCSHUM UDl 
JLKNOADfOrUft/M 
ALUMM ; 

NOWJUIIQ.U1DHOM/W/W 


wocfuurncokuwii 

rkOIKMGtf; 
NOtlUTAWCfNICHMWOP 
W£05 HlWrNOfHdlS 
MfUMOlmWAllCMAW' 
eiuocAuufAMfWJyffA 
IfkkAM llOMWlflkMA 
MlNIUMrANlJCONIkKIlI, 
cnifliANruo^uiWM 
INJikUUMUfNUHDAIUf 

i mosirH, 

buMiLiAUfkUNTiwcou 
ClDltVdtDlStlUS flk 
kUMPfCrkAWflllAWlMA 
fiu;'poNicuiwiuiu<k 

jumhu;,- 

elOQUIUWDNUNflAW 
MAUmUM'MlftTU.Vfl 
K>lUI HUM rjuwcfwro 
ruiokuMfroiMUinu; 


A FACSIMILE OF A LEAF OF THE UTRECHT PSALTER. IN UNCIAL LETTERS, FROM 
A COPY IN THE LIBRARY OF PROFESSOR CURTISS. 

Ps. cv, 1-20. 

Reduced nearly one-third from the original. 



76 


THE PESHITTO—JEROME’S TRANSLATION—EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS. 


exactness of Aquila and the superficial scholarship of Theodotion. The Old Latin versions 
which were current before the time of Jerome and which became very corrupt, because they 
were not in high repute, are of no special significance in this connection, as they are based on 
the Septuagint. We have another important witness from the second century in the Syriac 
version, called the Peshitto — that is simple, or for the common people. The Old Testament 
is the work of several translators, and is in the main a careful rendering from an original 
Hebrew which corresponds to our Massoretic text. We cite one more witness of highest 
standing, Jerome. He was the most learned man that the Church afforded for many centuries. 
He had enjoyed a careful classical training and after arriving at Bethlehem, where he lived 
thirty-four years, he perfected his knowledge of Hebrew through the instructions of a Jew 
Who came to him by night that both of them might be free from suspicion. He began his 
translation in the year 392 A. D., and finished it in twelve years. In this work he had the 
assistance of some most eminent Jewish scholars, at great expense, which is supposed to have 
been met by his devoted friend Paula, a noble Roman lady. If we take his translation as a 
mirror of the Hebrew text of his time, we find that it does not differ from the Massoretic in 
important respects, although its agreement is not perfect. Nevertheless we must remember that 
his translation was subject to certain corrupting influences which came through the manuscript 
copies of the Old Latin renderings of the Septuagint. 

Now, if we consider the testimony of our witnesses we shall find that for all practical 
purposes they really supply the place of Hebrew manuscripts in the Talmudical period. 
While they furnish data to the Old Testament text critic for his work, they agree in 
representing a text, during that period, which does not differ in any essential elements from 
that exhibited in the manuscripts of the following Massoretic period. 


CHAPTER V. 


ROLLS AND MANUSCRIPTS. 


T E consider the history of manuscripts in connection with the Massoretic period (600-1000 



’ ’ A. D.). While, as we have seen, Assyrian memorials have come down from 4000 B. C., 
and the most extensive literature on clay tablets, and a profusion of fragile papyrus rolls have 
been found in Egypt, some of which reach back to the third millennium B. C., and more 
recently an extensive correspondence between Palestine and Egypt, in the Assyrian characters 
of the Tel el-Amarna Tablets, about the year 1500 B. C., not one manuscript remains of the 
Old Testament, which we can affirm with certainty is older than the tenth centurv A. I). 

For this there must be sufficient reasons stronger than the perils through which the Jewish 
manuscripts passed at the hands of their enemies; 1 one of these reasons is really in the living- 
character of the Old Testament, as a collection of sacred hooks for Jews and Christians, while 
the memorials mentioned are simply like the petrified remains of extinct peoples; another is in 
the stereotyped character of the text, in the time of the Massoretes and perhaps of the Talmud¬ 
ists, which doubtless occasioned the destruction of all manuscripts containing a variant text, and 
a superstitious reverence for their sacred books, which led the Jews to bury ancient and defaced 
rolls and manuscripts. From their point of view manuscripts containing other readings were 
to be destroyed, new clean manuscripts were better than old and soiled ones. 

The Hebrew word for book was really more flexible than ours. It could be applied to a 

1 1. Maccabees i, 56, iii, 48; compare Taanit, iv, 7. 











- — 7 


imb *-(^w»is>vvNprtH wh 1y#ibnt* -d^p 
C'TntP o"&*b TO-ifc jww ontyj;nDU> cna Syi 
\n15Sb woabv tynfbhw SSdTi rbuo 
tuy to , ~PD v 7 UMpb nSbb hp'bS jbib.n 


*TTtVM to , „ 

r’snbcr -- 
4rip* vpirK-. 





tn*^ittrfcp efwSinih oynSsS nS»nncyy 
TO “*rc tr# ryp^ nrtoo to TOi SihjnS 
p ,u ro^r r-w ffcpnt pfe-o -lift -Jabnirp 
trpy ant nrbte bc> "nvsjrt tpa *S'SJU Sjy jDrwi ■ 


.. . _ ,. XJ Pj? tDJPNj -.*. .. %g : SR 

j-mnw pSvben lannnjDS"*^ 

p-p Q'j^oTOra vysnpr* 







FACSIMILE OF AN ESTHER ROLL, FROM THE LIBRARY OF PROFESSOR CURTISS 

Esther i, 1-11. 

Reduced about one-third from the original. 























ANCIENT ROLLS—THE TALMUDISTS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


76 a 

letter, 1 or a treatise of less than a page. 2 It seems to indicate the ordinary material on which 
writing was made, as a preparation of skins. There are two accounts in the Old Testament 
which indicate that certain parts of it were preserved in a monumental way. The Ten Com¬ 
mandments were inscribed on tables of stone, 3 and after the entrance of the Israelites into 
Canaan, Joshua is said to have inscribed a part of Deuteronomy on plaster. 4 There is no 
mention of papyrus, or of clay tablets as used in the transmission of the Old Testament Text, 5 
but the roll is mentioned many times, especially in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 6 Probably in a very 
literal sense, which we usually fail to recognize, the Old Testament was a library. The Penta¬ 
teuch, on account of its extent, was rolled around two sticks, according to the custom which 
we know to have prevailed for centuries among the Jews, 7 although it may also have been 
preserved without the sticks; other books may have been rolled around one stick, or even 
preserved without. Probably one roll was often used for each of the larger books of the Old 
Testament. If the entire Old Testament was found in the synagogue in the time of Christ, 
not to mention other books, it might contain a library of many rolls. 8 Before the invention of 
parchment, rules for the manufacture of which are given in the Talmud, the skins of clean 
animals were used. Rolls of such a description, made from goat skins, may be seen in the 
University library of Cambridge, England. 

At what period the rolls of the Old Testament were gathered in more convenient book 
form we cannot tell. The custom of the Romans must have had an influence upon the Jews. 
At any rate we find evidence in the Talmud of the existence of manuscripts of the Old Testa¬ 
ment in book form. 9 It is not unlikely that the Jews began to preserve their sacred books in 
this way not very long after the beginning of the Christian era. 

While we have found evidence of even more freedom in the transmission of the Old 
Testament text in the time of the scribes (444 B. C.-70 A. D.) than is apparent in the trans¬ 
mission of the New Testament books, the attitude of the Talmudists toward the Old Testament 
shows a reverence which precludes the idea of their attempting anything but its most careful 
transmission, so far as the resources of the time allowed. This attitude did not exclude an 
elementary kind of text criticism, as we learn that in the case of a disputed reading the Rabbis 
consulted three manuscripts. As they found two in agreement against the third they adopted 
the reading of the two. 10 They counted how many words, verses and letters there were in the 
whole Bible and in different sections of it; 11 they gave special attention to all that was charac¬ 
teristic of manuscripts that were considered correct. All these matters during the Talmudical 
period were handed down by tradition. Their view of the sacredness of Scripture prevented 
them wittingly from taking any liberties with the text. Even the tanning of the skins to be 
used for the preservation of the Scriptures was regarded as a religious act, which, if omitted, 
made the product of the tannery illegal for this sacred purpose. 12 So, too, the scribe must 
consciously recognize that his work was for the glory of God. 13 Even the most celebrated Rabbi, 
who knew the Jewish Law by heart, might not presume to write one letter from memory. 14 He 
must have an authentic copy before him. This attitude of the Talmudists toward the Law, 
which they regarded as the holy of holies, and in general toward the rest of the books of the Old 
Testament, especially the Prophets, taken in connection with the other sources which we have 
mentioned for determining the text, makes it clear that even in this period the text of the Old 
Testament has been transmitted with a faithfulness which does not appertain to any Greek or 
Roman author, or even to such a comparatively modern work as Shakspeare. 

When we reach the time of the Massoretes we find a system of rules observed for copying 

1 This usage is frequent. II. Samuel xi, 14,15, etc. 2 Genesis v. 3 Exodus xxxi, 18. 

4 Deuteronomy xxvii, 2-8 ; Joshua viii, 30-32. 3 The tile used by Ezekiel, iv, 1-3, served a different purpose. 

6 Jeremiah xxxvi, 14, 20, 23, 25-29, etc. 7 See the Baraitha to Baba Bathra, 14. 8 It is recognized that the Old 

Testament might be written on a small number of rolls, but still it had the form of a library. 9 See Baba Bathra, 136. 

10 Sopherim vi, 4 11 Qiddushin, 306. 12 Gittin, 406, 546. 13 Shabbath, 1446, 14 Megillah, 186. 






j—ww cw 3PP3 *a\a* t«?c pax znvy\ -»rrv 3 
lyrvy arnPN^ pyap.x 3P*pap pynp ’ySpnoyS 
S 73 ' cp 33 ^-pc*^ar r.N->PO*p P) 33 grrnfXTftJ 
»hS,x pu*p> 3*33 pjpSi pe'sb mn*n 

—?a;y aSj- xp» "*-'N r-»;-n pe-a pew "*p© 
p VnS- 31 panpnx p -\ap\x T3 apSnjrry 
.—w -c’N'ra pn ne^P-w pusSpip p^ w 

;-t -oa*pyfwpax’Snx wo ruro^c w 

arrpr^voi pnsa' rfeana ap-napmrpn 
1 —^33 na.xS.aS put* 3^r-»Sa c*bai 

—*33 a-au'prii’P 3nr vvi e~ipp roxSy 

•^'paspa 1 epppSpu'a Spra'C’Sep nwayapi 
pyac^ rera.ni P'xayari “oarwamyn 
'—ape-p ,xpa rWSjkjpa rnppSpjraSpr 
a—>cy pa □•xpsnS? *>a;*pSaSe-xppSpt?a 
sam a*oSx pe’Se’i *px p\x.a ax'S pSj*oi pxp 
•itn n.x ppsS span paa pkd *pm a*e*.ani mm 
—'33H pxaS am* px.apapon- j-»n px> e-ppp 
oyac * 1 -iu*.ani pvxapy 3iri sfj.xpPN'pxSnaa 
«rnj’ apx ,ae*ni ap’u'xppo* ’ a’mayS dpi ppy 
eyn Spa , p\xa; , 3-'.\n apSx^aa a^-airnoanp 
nx' ne’pjpnarypN'nyraSpN npo'snxpKPa 
p*iw ’nx pn' naw ,l, a ^a phi A p-x .wi too 
nx'p: an ppp’SaPNipynppyimx Pj03*ao 
•jcnjyS>ni pj'XP'rSapnp^ a*aa-»ynp ppjrSa 
u’—tpp wa px ie yn rip 3 p-'fS xps* *pja >uy 
. pu-.ap.x nrr rx nsaca pPxSptrx 
erncTPjPw pjpxipSapap? noxppxfcjpi 
7 P 3 p*eyW*P3 pvp' apfp *pd px y;m p» fra 
t , c*p*T»P3’ au’p pj*S\p *yP3' pjp.xp tvo* topp 

■P3PW>S,P 3C* Sj‘ pnont*igyPOP3 afrPPr>13 

nSaP 3 Pf iPUToa n'p ]j.aa vSy ps*n ippok arm 
nx jwr n’s * v -S3 prrarcM acTj’Sw foi'vn 
ns 3C*.a paaa dpl-p aax px leyi pc*o 

□cp sj<pe”*33 P'ac*Sy an»p -pipd pnpoaanf 
"Pt'xaSxpu-aaS fnar aa.x ponp PonaSy opx 
t Pt:iapxm!rn\fc 

ppSap apr pon puxaa am ptxa fe*rn pn trjh 
iCT S^oap’p^'ap prraex , »ai: , pi^pip>pxi 
Pipp.x >3 \xSap S^oa ian-1 ppm opkpp r fc*ap pn 
p>yp> PPNP P^yp ppP3' PP-JO 3PN pnj pN ’Piy 

lac* ou'^—» •u , *Sk , p p>ypi aS^, n . 9D ^ t . n 


• _ 





TORA ROLL FROM THE LIBRARY OF PROFESSOR CURTISS. 

Ex. xxxviii, 18 — xxxix, 1-12. 

Reduced about one-third from the original. 




































THE MASHORE TIC TEXT—CARE IN TRANSCRIPTION. 


// 

the Pentateuch, and, to a modified extent, the other books of the Old Testament, which insured 
absolute accuracy in the transmission of the text so far as that is possible for the hand of man. 
While the various readings of a Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali are interesting to scholars, and 
the slight differences in readings, such as Baer presents in his text, are of service to the critic, 
they show conclusively, that practically, during the time of the Massoretes, there is but one text 
worth considering. If a demonstration were needed this has been furnished by Kennicott 1 and 
De Rossi, 2 whose labors, extending to the examination of hundreds of Hebrew manuscripts, 
show beyond a question one type among all classes of manuscripts. 

When we examine the rules for the preparation of a synagogue roll of the Law and of 
manuscripts we see this could not be otherwise. It was considered meritorious that every 
Jew should prepare a copy of the Law, either by Ids own hand or through a scribe. 3 Neither 
woman, child, servant, apostate, nor Gentile might engage in this sacred work. 4 The skins were 
to be prepared from clean animals after a fixed recipe 5 only by an orthodox Jew, who, before 
engaging in this work, had consecrated himself to it by repeating this formula : “ I tan this skin 
on purpose that a roll of the Law may be written upon it.” They were to be ruled with a hard 
piece of wood or iron that would not leave a colored mark. 6 Exact directions were given -as to 
the preparation of the ink. 7 The letters of a word were to be uniform and not more than the 
breadth of a hair asunder, words were to be separated by the space of a small consonant ; 8 
sections by the space of nine letters; 9 books of the Pentateuch by the space of four vacant 
lines. 10 The length of the lines was to be thirty letters, and every column of a roll was not to 
have more than sixty nor less than forty lines. 9 The scribe while writing must follow an 
authentic copy. He might not even write the smallest letter, yodli, from memory. He must 
observe a special formula of consecration when he wrote the name of God. He must say : 
“ I am ready to write the name of the Lord with mind and understanding.” If he omitted this 
formula once the roll was unlawful. He must not dip his pen in ink to write the name, but 
must begin with the last letter of the preceding word. Nor might he recognize the greeting of 
the king of Israel while engaged in writing the name of God. 11 The following regulations were 
made regarding the correction of a roll. It must be revised in thirty days. 12 It might be 
corrected even though it had three inaccuracies in every column; “ but if there were four 
mistakes in half or more of a number of columns, even though there were no other faults at all, 
then the roll might not be corrected and must consequently be buried,” 13 or might be used in 
the schools for purposes of instruction. Rolls that were buried because decayed or Unlawful 
must be placed in an earthen vessel and under the ground near the grave of some learned 
man. 14 Only plain ink was allowed in the preparation of synagogue rolls, no gilding, and no 
illuminations such as Avere permitted in the manuscripts of the Old Testament. 

The order observed in a preparation of ordinary manuscripts was as follows: the conso¬ 
nants were to be written first, aftenvard the voavcIs and accents, next the revision, then the 
massora or tradition regarding the text, the lesser between the columns, of which there might be 
several according to the width of the manuscript, and the greater on the margins, and last the 
scholia or comments. Sometimes this work Avas performed by five different persons, sometimes 
by one , 15 as appears from the subscriptions, which in a feAv cases have recently been added by 
dealers in manuscripts who wished to enhance their value by branding them with an antique 
trade-mark. 

111 Veins Testamentum Hebraicum cum Variis Lectionibus,” Oxonii, 1776, 1780. 

2 “Variae Lectiones Veteuis Testament* ex Immema MSS. EdUorumq. Codirum Congerie Haustae ” . .. Opera ac 

Studio Johannis Bern. De Rossi, S. T. D., Parmae, 1784, 1786. 8 Maimonides, “ Seplier Tora,” vii, 1. 

4 Mai mo n ides, “Tephillin,” i, 13. 5 Ibid, i, 10. 6 Megillah, 16 b; Gittin, 6b ; Yebamoth, 106ft. 

7 Maimonides, “Tephillin,” i, 5. 8 Maimonides, “Sepher Tora,” vii, 4. 9 Ibid, 10. 10 Ibid, 7. 

11 Sopherim v, 6. 12 Alphas, 347ft. 13 Maimonides, “ Tephillin,” vii, 12. 14 Burton & Drake, “ Unexplored 

Syria,” Vol. I, p. 328, 15 Eichhorn, “ Einleitung in das Alte Testament,” Goettingen, 1823, Yol. II, pp. 467-549. 




1 


i l L 

if t 
c >.»• 

-ft* 

X 

" 2 r - 

t; r , 

« 3 " 

??I 

£K 

f-ii 

r pi 

»: ° 

S f. « 

&r - 

ffi 

-0 - 

..a-* o 

OJ 

r~ r - 0 

:ii 

« 3 f 

_/ e r_ 

—r « r 
-o 
r'r ^ 

rtj 


& 5* b §> ?> ?- * » 


r> # 6 I kj^ o 


& 5 ov ” r- 9 r ft 



b ! - a x r fv 




§|f| 5 >R 

r r {y ft-T, *v ° 

z.mm 

ub-m 

r “r 5 ? ? ^ 9 

n p»J« r' j}. *-v / 

Q £ J' Ob ^ 6. 


*>b gJi £ 

r 5 . h n: r 

rtP 




^gj> n r: 5, r !: £ rs p 

a * st ?• a p f u %/ rn Lcj 

#6-l.-g-fc PgT - -' "-fTn'-orat 


r vf K ^ *: J " 0 » 

z- r r r $ B y r * 

b c £J 5 % 3 £ § 

*-» j- •'i _ r r r 




■r;% »T Jr u r . 

E-t ftf-F's 

In “_r>r ^ 

1 r ^»i! 

n-fjr 5 .% 



m 

p ? r 


7. 


iJ 


n ■ 

i 

r r. 

n v 

it 


it 

11 

! 
5 r 
? * 
3 


C r. 
£ 0 
i r 


- « 

r y. 
j. r 
r. > 


5 r- * f 

? a_r r. 
—Ur s- r. 

®5- 

3 f 2 / 
? f; r i 

ft ?-T 1 

0 i X 7 


I. v 


FACSIMILE OF TWO LEAVES OF CODEX CURTISIANUS I., A SPANISH MS. OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. FROM 

THE LIBRARY OF PROFESSOR CURTISS. 














78 


CAPTIONS AND COMMENTS—ETERNAL VERITY OF THE WORD. 


The Tora rolls of the present day exhibit neither titles nor books, chapters nor verses. 
The whole Pentateuch is divided into fifty-four sections for reading in the synagogues on the 
Jewish sabbath. The five books and the various sections, larger and smaller, are simply 
indicated by an initial or important word at the beginning. The same custom is prevalent 
among the Assyrians. While the verses are pretty clearly marked by parallelism, their present 
arrangement is due to the Massoretes. The division of the Old Testament into chapters was 
adopted from the Latin Vulgate. 1 Nor was the designation of the other books of the Old 
Testament any more explicit. They follow, even in the Prophets, as indicated in the “Codex 
Petropolitanus ,” without any titles. The only heading which exists is simply that which is 
found in the first verse of each book, as “Vision of Isaiah, which he saw concerning Judah and 
Jerusalem,” etc. “Codex Curtisianus, I,” furnishes an interesting example of the use of the 
margin of a manuscript for a treatise which has no bearing whatever on the elucidation of the 
text. Such a custom, as well as the use of margins for comments, arose from the scarcity of 
writing material. It is quite probable that in the age of the scribes, some of these comments, 
used in the explanation of the text, may have become embodied with it. We can say, however, 
that the preservation of the Old Testament text, especially in the time of the Talmudists and 
the Massoretes, is little less than miraculous, and even in the time of the scribes does not affect 
the essential character of Scripture. 

There are two answers which we may return, with all confidence, to the question of the 
origin and transmission of the Old Testament text: (1) That God’s word was given in the Old 
Testament, through man to man. Hence that word is both human and divine. But its 
divinity does not abate one jot from its humanity. Its divinity is seen in its progressive 
character, in its perfect adaptation to the men to whom it was first given, in its preparation for 
him who is the only Key to Law, Prophecy, and History, and in its adaptation to all times. 
These are more sure marks of divinity than perfect style, science, or history; for perfect style, 
science, and history might have made it an enigma to the men for whom it was first written. 
(2) These books have been transmitted in the original languages 2 with the utmost care, and yet 
we see that God’s revelation does not depend upon the mere letter, any more than the human 
spirit is dependent upon the possession of the same particles and the same appearance in 
manhood as in youth. 

God has not removed the possibility of unbelief regarding his Word. In every age there 
are those to whom Christ could say, as of old : “ Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will in no 
wise believe.” 3 But to every honest student of the Word, these signs and wonders are not 
necessary for the confirmation of the record. The Bible itself, in what it is and does, is a 
greater wonder than the most marvelous confirmation which the hand of man can bring. These 
are not unimportant, but it is well to see that the Bible has a character which no amount of 
criticism, whether higher 4 or lower, 5 can shake. These things no more affect the settled deeps 
of God’s truth than the tempest-tost waters disturb the depths of ocean. Critics may come 
and go, “ But the Word of our God shall stand forever.” 6 

1 In the editions of the Hebrew Bible by Bom berg, Venice, 1521; Frobeuius, Basel, 1536; and Robert Stephens, Paris, 
1539-1544, there is no division into chapters. 

2 Besides the Hebrew Aramaic passages are Daniel ii, 4b, to vii, 28; Ezra iv, 8, to vi, 18, vii, 12-26. 3 John iv, 48. 

‘Examination of the origin and literary character of the books. 5 Examination of the text. 6 Isaiah xl, 8. 





BOOK II 


FROM THE CREATION TO THE DAWN OF HUMAN HISTORY. 


BY 

/ 

Frederic W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S. 


DEAN OF CANTERBURY, 


Archdeacon of Westminster; Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Ciiaplin to the House 
of Commons, and Deputy Clerk of the Closet to the Queen, 


LONDON, ENGLAND. 













BOOK II. 


FROM THE CREATION TO THE DAWN OF HUMAN HISTORY 


CHAPTER I. 

GENERAL SURVEY. 

r PHE task which I am bidden to undertake is to set forth the lessons, and explain the religious 
significance, of those opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, from the first to the 
eleventh, which cover the vast period — of unknown length — between the creation and the 
dawn of history. Those chapters contain all that holy men of old illumined by the light of the 
Holy Spirit, which in greater or less degree lighteth every man when he cometh into the world, 
were guided to preserve for ns from the immemorial traditions of the Semitic race. The form 
which this revelation assumed, whether it be regarded as poetic or mythic, or as literally histor¬ 
ical, is, in any case, of incomparably less moment than the idea which it enshrines. The view 
taken by learned seekers after truth of the date, origin, and character of the Biblical records 
has, in the last century, undergone an immense though silent revolution. 

All Christians have held that the Bible is, in a general sense, and as a whole, and with 
reference to its final teachings, “inspired”; and that it contains the most perfect revelation of 
God which has ever been vouchsafed to humanity. But no dogmatic definition of inspiration, 
and no definition of it which demands implicit belief either in the genuineness and authenticity 
of all its books, or the absolute inerrancy of all its details, has ever been promulgated for the 
acceptance of the Christian Church. On the other hand, the flood of light which modern criti¬ 
cism has poured on the composition, origin, and meaning of the Scripture has not only left 
undisturbed every one of the great eternal verities of which Scripture is the chief vehicle, hut 
has brought those verities home to us with incomparably greater force and vividness by disen¬ 
cumbering them from masses of crystalized superstition and traditional error. We no longer 
need to stare at Scripture as at some sphinx which devours those who cannot read her riddle, 
but we gaze at it as at some “human face divine”—human, indeed, and speaking with human 
lips, and marked by human limitations, but illuminated from within by an eternal knowledge, 
sympathy, and compassion. 

It is no part of my task to write an introduction to the History of Modern Criticism. 
That has already been done in many volumes—English,.American, French, Dutch, and espe¬ 
cially German. These works have been based upon life-long, indefatigable and deeply conscien¬ 
tious researches. They set forth the conclusions which are now universally accepted by the 
foremost European scholars because they appeal with irresistible cogency to their reason and 
moral sense. But as my comment on these sacred records and traditions of primeval history 
will be silently modified throughout by the most recent results of critical inquiry, a few words 
on the subject are here indispensable. 

As the result of the labors of indefatigable scholars and profound Hebraists, one broad and 
general result may now be regarded as absolutely proven: namely, that the Pentateuch as a 

81 




82 


ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH. 


whole, together with the Book of Joshua, which properly belongs to it, is based on the combina¬ 
tion of four independent, original, and in most instances easily distinguishable documents. 

These four constituent documents of the Hexateuch are not only marked by the existence 
of minor repetitions and divergencies but each of them has its own moral and religious 
coloring, its own prominent conception, its own predominant aim, its own marked style and 
method, outline, and favorite expressions. They are thus separated from each other by material 
differences in the substance and object, and also by formal differences in style, in phraseology, in 
numbers, in facts, and in religious standpoint as well as the name by which they speak of God. 
And these differentiating marks are concomitant. They are not isolated nor do they occur in 
the narrative indiscriminately. They are numerous and reappear. It is even possible with 
approximate probability to conjecture the age in which each of the four documents was written, 
the region in which they first saw the light and the school of thought from which they respec¬ 
tively emanated. The induction which has led to their separation is based on many different 
lines of observation — especially the study of history, of worship, of the Hebrew language, and 
of Hebrew literature. The four main documents of the Hexateuch are as follows: 

(1) P. There is one document which forms the predominant stratum in which all the 
others are imbedded and which is traceable throughout the Hexateuch. It is most commonly 
and conveniently designated by the letter P as forming a part of the Priestly Code. It is in its 
main purpose a book of laws. It is much later than E and J and it tells the story of Israel 
from the creation, from the standpoint of priestly enactments which many critics regard as 
post-exilic. 

(2) E. A narrative by an Elohistic writer, who all but invariably uses the name Elohim. 
It is predominantly a book of Judaic history, beginning with the patriarchs and extending 
through the Book of Joshua. 

(3) J. A narrative by a writer who from the first uses the name Yahveh (Jehovah) and 
is therefore called the Yahvist. It is an outcome of the prophetic schools and breaks off with 
the blessing of Balaam. 

(4) J E. The additions of an editor who appears to have combined the works of Elohist 
and the Yahvist (E and J) into one narrative before they were interwoven with P by one or 
more later editors. The separate traces of this Redactor are, however, less easily and less 
certainly distinguishable than those of the others and are, from the nature of his task, of subor¬ 
dinate importance. The result of his labors was that “ there were two historical works in 
existence (P and J E) both running parallel from the creation to the settlement of Israel in 
Canaan.” The history of worship alone involves four marked stages of progress. The Yah- 
vistic (850 B. C.), the Deuteronomic (621 B. C.), the Ezekelian (573 B. C.), the Priestly 
(444 B. C.). These differ from each other as to the four particulars of time, place, mode, and 
persons of Jewish cult; and there is an observable difference, not only as to the facts but also 
as to the tone and spirit of the worship. 

The main distinguishing characteristics of these four documents are as follows: (1) The 
Priestly writer (P). This document is especially important to us in the opening eleven chapters 
because it forms the greater part of them. It runs through the entire Hexateuch and essen¬ 
tially the law book of Israel. It was designed to set forth the ordinances, rights, customs, and 
usages which prevail among the chosen people as a congregation rather than as a kingdom. 
The history is only used as the basis of institutions, and as the explanation of their origin. 
Thus the opening chapters are intended as a sketch of the great phases of divine government, 
by which, even from the foundation of the world, the holy nation was elected by God to be “ a 
people of his own possession,” and was separated by marked epochs of advancing disseverment 
from the other tribes and nations of the world. It is with this view, and not solely for their 
own importance, that the writer narrates the creation, the deluge, the covenant with Noah, the 


SCRIPTURAL GENEALOGY—PRIESTLY, ELOHIST , AND YAH VIST CODES. 


83 


dispersion of mankind, the overthrow of haughty world-empires, the call of Abraham, the 
covenant with Abraham, and a covenant with Israel. One indication of this purpose in P is 
the tenfold recurrence ot the phrase “these are the generations of,” literally, “the begettings” 
or “genealogies.’ This phrase forms a sort of running headline, to mark off the stories of (1) 
lhe creation ot heaven and earth (Genesis ii, 4, ff.). (2) The story of the descendants of 

Adam, through Seth to Noah (v, 1, ff.). (3) The story of Noah, and his sons (vi, 9, ff.). (4) 

I he story of the sons of Noah, and the nations descended from them (x, 1, ff.). (5) The line 

ot Shem down to Terah, the father of Abram (xi, 10, ff). (6) The line and descendants 
ot lerah to the death ot Abram (xi, 27, ff). (7) The line of Ishmael and the Arab tribes 
which sprang from him (xxv, 12, ff). (8) The line of Isaac, and the story of his two sons till 
Isaac’s death (xxv, 19, ff). (9) The line of Esau, and his descendants (xxxvi, 9, ff). (10) 
lhe line ot Jacob, and the story of his descendants till the death of Joseph (xxxvii, 2, ff). 

Another characteristic of P is its annalistic style. The narratives are presented in a some¬ 
what bare and dry form, with systematic statistics, genealogies, and chronological statements, 
which are in entire subservience to a puristic purpose. The writer dislikes all gross anthropo¬ 
morphisms and omits stories of the patriarchs which offend his moral sense. He abounds in 
recurrent and somewhat technical expressions. His work is systematic in its structure and 
concrete in its delineations. It avoids poetic terms and pictures. We infer, especially from 
large parts of Leviticus which belong to it, that this narrative originated among the priesthood 
of Jerusalem, in all probability after the days of Ezekiel and in the epoch of the Exile. The 
writer is chiefly occupied with the theocracy rather than with humanity. His promises are 
limited to Israel and his interest is in Levitic ceremonialism rather than in the deep universal 
problem of theology and the passionate yearnings of the human heart. This document is 
marked in character and singularly homogeneous. The part of it contained in the first eleven 
chapters of Genesis is meant as a vestibule to the great temple which it desires to construct. It 
dwells on the creation, the deluge, and the covenant with Noah as preludes to the covenants 
with Abram, Jacob, Moses, and “As an introduction to the systematic view of the Theocratic 
Institutions which are to follow in Exodus to Numbers and which it is the main object of the 
author to exhibit.” 

2. The Elohist (E). The document E is distinguishable by the use of the name 
Elohim for God till Exodus iii, together with the other characteristics which separate it deci¬ 
sively from P. I believe it to be largely based on oral tradition. It is generally agreed that 
the writer was a citizen of the Northern Kingdom. It abounds in special details about names, 
incidents, antiquities, sacred cities, and facts of local interest; and shows special regard for the 
dominance of Joseph and of the tribe of Ephraim. Unlike P it refers freely to the angels and 
dream revelations, and has none of the marked antipathy of the Priestly Code for local sanc¬ 
tuaries, nor even for matseboth and teraphim. This document is of less importance for these 
earlier chapters of Genesis, since it first makes its distinct and continuous appearance in chapter 
xx. Its narratives appear to be often mingled with those of J, and the ultimate analysis of 
these two documents is not always certain in details, though agreed upon in general outlines. 
E is more objective than P, less consciously tinged with ethical and theological reflection. In 
the matchless narrative of Joseph the writer shows his delight in didactic history. 

3. The Yahvist (J). The third or Yahvistic document adopts from the first the name 
Yaliveh, and may be described as distinctively the prophetic narrative. In Dillmann’s opinion 
it emanated from Judah — a conclusion which he deduces from the exaltation of Judah 1 and 
from the interest displayed in the Negeb, or South country. 2 The Yahvist goes over many of 
the same facts as the author of P—the creation, the flood, the race of Noah, parts of the 
history of Abram, etc. His narrative is the most graphic and literary in form. Many of 


‘Genesis xxxvii, 26, ff., xliii, 4, ff., etc. 


2 Genesis xxi, 33, xxxi, 23-25, etc. 



84 


THE REDACTOR—BIBLE CLAIMS— INS PI R A T10X. 


his passages are “ masterpieces of narration they are flowing, eloquent, tender, graceful, and 
marked by an infinite charm and pathos. He is also a deeper and more earnest psychologist 
than the other writers, as is shown by his account of the Origin of Sin, and “ the method of 
God’s compassion ” in dealing with it, and obliterating its ominous effects on the world and 
man. At the same time he speaks of Jehovah with frank and anthropomorphic simplicity.’ 
“ His characteristic features,” says Professor Driver, “may he said to be the fine vein of ethical 
and theological reflection which pervades his work throughout, and the manner in which his 
narrative, even more than that of E, becomes the vehicle of religious teaching.” It is by no 
means easy to settle the relative ages of E and J. The latest writers think that the date of J 
is about 850 to 800 B. C.; and the date of E not later than 750 B. C. 

4. The Redactor (J E). The Redactor, whose work it was to unite the separate 
narratives of J and E, naturally occupies a place of subordinate importance. He was rather 
an editor than an independent author. It is agreed among critics that E is brief, terse, and 
archaic in his style. J is poetic and descriptive. His imagination and fancy are ever active. 
It is annalistic and diffuse. He denies its precision and completeness. The logical faculty 
prevails. In the first eleven chapters of Genesis it seems probable that the narratives must be 
divided as follows: 

J.—Genesis ii, 46-25. P 

iii, 1-24. 

iv, 1-10, 25, 20. 

v, 20 (or J E). 

vi, 1-4, 5-8. 

vii, 1-5 (and other separate verses, 
e. y., 12, 106, 17-22). 

viii, 26, 3a, 0-12, 136, 20-22. 

ix, 18a, 10-27. 

x, 8-10, 21, 24-30. 

xi, 1-0, 286-30. 

a Refers to the first clause of the verse mentioned. 

h Refers to the second clause of the verse mentioned. 

If it be asked in what way do these irrefragable critical conclusions affect our estimate of 
the Bible and modify our traditional views of the dogma of inspiration, the question deserves, 
on every ground, a serious answer. 

1. As regards the Bible, those who love the Bible most — those who are most deeply 
profited by the divine teaching it contains — ought to be more jealously careful than any 
others that they do not blindly and willfully adopt for it a claim which it never makes for 
itself. The more deeply we reverence the Holy Scriptures the more earnestly ought we to 
shrink from injuring them by false assertions, and the more carefully should we examine them 
to find out what they are, instead of forming a priori hypotheses as to what we should expect 
them to be. 

2. The question of inspiration is entirely vague. The word has never been defined by the 
Church, nor is it once explained in the Scripture. It is capable of multitudes of diverse senses; 
it must be used in very different connotations, according as it is applied to every separate phrase 
or section, or only to the Bible as a whole, and as finally represented by the ultimate perfection 
of its teaching in the life, the words, and the example of Christ. Two truths, however, about 
the Bible remain unshaken, and never can be shaken; and to them science and the higher 
criticism have set their seal as firmly as bibliolatry itself. 


.—Genesis i, 2-4«.. 

v, 1-28, 30-32. 

vi, 9-22. 

vii, 6, 11, 13-16a, 18-21, 24. 

viii, 1, 2 a, 36-5, 13-19, 236, 24. 

ix, 1-17, 28, 29. 

x, 1-7, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32. 

xi, 10-27, 31, 32. 


‘Genesis ii, 15, if., vi, (j, vii, 10, viii, 21. 



TESTIMONIES TO THE VALUE OF THE BIBLE. 


85 


a. One is that, “ Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that 
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, 
that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to 
salvation.” 1 

b. The other is that, though the Bible is not one book but sixty-six books; though it is not 
a book but a literature, and as Edmund Burke said, “ an infinite collection of the most varied 
and the most venerable literature though different parts of it are of very unequal value; 
though its morality and spiritual teaching are not from the first complete but show a gradual 
and progressive amelioration from the “ Times of ignorance which God winked at ” to the full 
light of the glorious Gospel; though even its distinctive teachings are not in all passages homo¬ 
geneous; though the written Word is not our only method of knowing God; yet the Bible, as a 
whole, is one of the most sacred, one of the most inestimable, gifts of God to man, and without 
it mankind would have walked for ages in the darkness which might be felt. 

3. A few of the very varied testimonies given to it by some of the greatest statesmen, 
thinkers, and scholars may serve to express its unsurpassable — nay, its absolutely unapproach¬ 
able— value; and these testimonies, so far from having been impugned or weakened by the 
higher criticism, have only been set by it in a more beautiful and vivid light. 

i. Speaking of the Bible, “Its light,” said Cardinal Newman, “is like the body of heaven 
in its clearness; its vastness like the bosom of the sea; its variety like the scenes of nature.” 

ii. “ The literature of Greece,” said Theodore Parker, “ which goes up like incense from 
that land of temples, has -not half the influence of this book of a despised nation. The sun 
never sets upon its gleaming page.” 

iii. “ What a book ! ” exclaimed Heinrich Heine, after a day sj)ent in the unwonted task of 
reading it; “Vast and wide as the world, rooted in the abysses of creation, and tow T ering up 
beyond the blue secrets of heaven, sunrise and sunset, promise and fulfillment, birth and death, 
the whole drama of humanity, all are in this book.” 

iv. “ I have been seriously perplexed to know,” says Professor Huxley, “ how the religious 
feeling, which is the essential base of conduct, can be kept up without the use of the Bible. 
For three centuries this book has been woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in 
English history. It forbids the veriest hind, who never left his village, to be ignorant of the 
existence of other countries and other civilizations and of a great past stretching back to the 
farthest limit of the oldest nations of the world. By the study of what other book could 
children be so much humanized and made to feel that each figure in that vast historical proces¬ 
sion fills, like themselves, but a momentary interspace between two eternities and causes the 
blessings or the curses of all time according to its efforts to do good and hate evil, even as they, 
also, are earning the payment for their work.” 

v. “ In this little book,” said Ewald to Dean Stanley as he stooped to pick up a New 
Testament, which had fallen from the table, “ in this little book is contained all the best wisdom 
of the world.” 

vi. u A pres tout," said Renan, “ le Bible est le grand llvre consolation de V Humanlte." 

Here, then, are the opinions of a Romish Cardinal, of an American Unitarian, of a Jewish 

litterateur, of an English agnostic and man of science, of a German student, of a French critic; 
they are all at one, and hundreds of similar testimonies might be quoted from men of every 
clime, and age, and tongue. 

4. Let it not, then, be said for a moment that the frank recognition of the human elements 
in the Bible in the slightest degree weakens — much less obliterates — our sense of the mercy 
which granted this boon to erring and suffering men; of the grace of superintendency which, 
amid all the accidents of more than 3,000 years, preserved its preciousness ; of its necessity and 


1 Sixth Article of the Church of England. 



86 


FIRST ELEVEN CHARTERS OF GENESIS UNIQUE AND SUPREME. 


priceless value to the human race; of its infinite adaptability to all nations, all ages, all orders 
and degrees of men; of the truth that “ every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for 
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may 
be complete, furnished completely unto every good work”; 1 of the truth that in its pages “holy 
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost of the truth that it contains the 
words and messages of God to the creatures whom he has made. “ Its eclipse would be the 
return of chaos, its extinction the epitaph of history.” “ If we be ignorant,” wrote King 
James’ translators of 1611, “the Scriptures will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring 
us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; 
if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege: tolle, lege” 

5. And as regards the eleven chapters which it will now be our duty and pleasure to 
examine, while Ave cannot perceive that they are not, and were never meant to be, taken in all 
their details for accurate science or for literal history, we shall be able abundantly to recognize 
their unique grandeur, their transcendent majesty, and their supreme spiritual importance. 
There may be in them the elements of naturalistic myth, of idealizing moral fiction, of imme¬ 
morial tradition, of historic legend, but, while the form in which they are cast does not permit 
us to regard them as supernaturally dictated, Ave shall see that they exhibit the A r ery loftiest 
and purest degree of inspiration in the sublime and eternal A'erities Avhicli they enshrine as an 
indefeasible possession for the entire race of man till time shall be no more. 

6. We shall see that they are absolutely unique. Nothing comparable to their Avealth of 
divine instructiveness could be gathered from all the vast agglomeration of the literature of the 
world, including all its sacred books. They are unique in scope, for in these chapters alone 
does the Bible deal with the general history of mankind before the flood; unique in concentra¬ 
tion, for they cover 2,000 of the 4,000 years of traditional chronology betAveen the creation and 
the coming of Christ; unique in the grandeur of their themes, since, among others, “ they deal 
with the origin of life, the origin of sin, the beginnings of civilization, the dispersion of 
nations, and the confusion of tongues; unique in choice of selection, since the Avriters luiA^e 
only dealt with eight or nine events in 2,0(X) years; unique, also, in bringing us more directly 
than any other part of Scripture face to face Avith what has been idly called ‘ the conflict of 
the Bible with science ’; but as it should far more accurately be stated, the true relations 
between the letter of parts of the Bible and that immense and glorious revelation which God 
has vouchsafed to human inquiry and human toil, in the certain results of astronomy, geology, 
ethnology, philology, and the various branches of physiological and biological science.” 

7. And they are not only unique but unquestionably and unapproachably supreme. 
There are many parallels to them, of a striking and deeply interesting character; parallels 
which sometimes extend even to minute particulars — in the Sacred Books and primitive tradi¬ 
tions of the Semitic, the Aryan, and the Allophylian races; but not the most poetic, the most 
recondite, or the most philosophical of these — not even those Avhicli Ave find in the Vedas of 
the thoughtful Hindoos, of which the Hesiodic and Homeric poems, or the philosophemes of 
the brilliant Greeks, or in the immemorial lore of Egyptian hierarchies, or in the striking 
myths of Babylon and Assyria, do AA r e find any single document Avhich could for one moment 
be compared in purity, in majesty, in simplicity, in the unadorned and awe-inspiring sublimity 
and spiritual conception, with the drama of the creation of the Avorld, and man, set forth in the 
first tA\ r o chapters of Genesis. It does not lose itself in the monstrous polytheism and endless 
complications of other cosmogonies, but sets forth with all the authority of a sacred oracle those 
truths which are at once the most elementary and the most essential; the truths on which the 
wisest and the noblest of nations have molded their religious obligations and their fundamental 
theology. The investigations of Mr. George Smith and the discovery by him of Assyrian 


'll. Timothy iii, 16-17 (Revised A T ersion). 



ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. 


87 


tablets on the site of the palace of Assur-bani-pal at Kuyunjik, have restored to us the Chaldean 
story of the deluge. A glance suffices to show us that the manifold resemblances to the Scrip¬ 
ture narrative, even in details and expressions, cannot possibly be fortuitous, although the 
Chaldean legend is perhaps older than the Jewish by hundreds of years; but it shows us at the 
same time that the superiority of the account of this catastrophe in Genesis is in all respects 
immense. 

In examining the records of such surpassing interest and value, our aim will be to disen¬ 
tangle them from the false conceptions of Jewish Rabbinism and Christian Scholasticism, and 
to set them forth in their divine perfection as the clearest, earliest, and most sacred teaching of 
eternal truths. 

And our method will be first to examine each chapter as it stands on the sacred page, and 
to illustrate it to the best of our ability in the limited space at our disposal by such truths as 
have been furnished to us by the accumulated knowledge and progress of the world. We may 
here note that Genesis is divided by the Jews into twelve sections (parashayoth), of which the 
first section is Genesis i, 1, to vi, 8, which is called Bereshith, the beginning; the second 
(vi, 9, to xi, 32) is called Noah; the third (xii, 1, to xvii, 27) is called“ Get thee out” 
(Lek-l’ka); the fourth (xviii, 1) “And he appeared,” and so on. 


CHAPTER II. 

(GENESIS I-Ii.) 

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD AND MAN. 

p. 

(GENESIS I, 1.) 

“ TN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The words “in (the) beginning” 
-L take us back to the dawn of all time, and of all existence. The writer knew as little as we 
know, as little as any men have ever known, of those inexpressible secrets which it is impossible 
for the mind of man to grasp. The ultimate origin and nature of things, the beginning of all 
beginnings in the Being of God, is concealed from human ken by an impenetrable veil. 
“Canst thou by searching find out God?” asks Zophar; “ Canst thou find out the Almighty 
unto perfection ? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do ? Deeper than Sheol; what 
canst thou know ? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.” 1 
Of molecules and protoplasm, of physical theories of the universe, of the origin of species, of 
the struggle for existence, of natural selection, of the laws which determined the formation of 
the stellar universe, of the impossibility of understanding anything in itself since all knowl¬ 
edge is nothing but a modification of an incognizable Ego by an incognizable non-Ego, of the 
countless discoveries and theories of modern science, the Hebrews knew little or nothing; and, 
even after they came into contact with Greek and other civilizations, few of them showed the 
smallest interest in such questions. Their speculative genius occupied itself with entirely 
different problems. Their appointed function among the races of mankind was to be the 
upholders to the nations of the banner of righteousness, and the revealer of the Unity, the 
Power, and the Love of God. 2 And their tendency was as little metaphysical as it was 
scientific. As they had no one word for the Universe, so they had no one word for eternity; 

1 Job xi, 7-9. 2 This is constantly insisted on in Scripture. See Exodus xiii, 9; Deuteronomy xxxiii, 2; Psalm 

lxxviii, 5; Isaiah i, 10; Hosea iv, 6, viii, 12, etc. 




88 


FALSE METHODS OF INTERPRETATION. 


and perhaps but few of them had faced or grasped eternity as an abstract and indefinable 
conception. 1 Such a phrase as “ ages of ages ” ordinarily sufficed them. The Hebrew chro¬ 
nology treated constructively makes the age of the existing order of the world and man only 
extend backward to the petty limit of 6,000 years; but there is nothing to prove that the writer 
did not mentally date back the primordial movements of creation to untold ages of the past. 
In that case, the phrase “ in the beginning ” would be as absolute as it is in the mighty opening 
of the prologue of the Gospel of Saint John, where “in beginning” (without the article) 
not only takes us back to “the initial moments of time and creation,” 2 but to a time where 
Time itself was not, seeing that time is but a mode of thought necessitated by human limita¬ 
tions, and it is only our weakness which “sometimes shapes the shadow time”; whereas to the 
Almighty One it does not appear as “ a phantom of succession ” but “ is and was and will be ” 
are but is. 

In dealing with Holy Writ, the deepest spirit of reverence, no less than the sacred 
demands of truth, compels us to sweep away the manifold glosses of later interpreters, whereby 
they endeavor with artificial manipulations to force out of the language of Scripture the concep¬ 
tions which, in accordance with a preconceived theology, they think that it ought to contain. 

i. Thus we reject the gloss of the Jerusalem Targum in which the writers, imbued with 
the conception of the chokmah or Sapiential literature, represented “in the beginning” by the 
words “ with wisdom,” that is, “ by his Word, the Logos.” The conception is perfectly true 
that “ He hath established the world by his wisdom,” 3 and Proverbs viii, 22-31, is a develop¬ 
ment of this thought. There Wisdom cries: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his 

way, before his works of old.When there were no depths, .... before the 

hills was I brought forth, while as yet he had not made the earth.When he 

prepared the heavens; . . . . when he gave to the sea his decree, .... when he 
appointed the foundations of the earth : then I was by him, .... and I was daily his 
delight.” But to find that truth in this phrase is to sanction that system of exorbitant infer¬ 
ences, the “ever-widening spiral ergo from the narrow apertures of single texts” which has 
been the curse of all sane and honest exegesis. 4 

ii. The Jews did not stand alone in applying this false method. We know that it was 
Christ, the Logos, the Divine Word “ by whom also all things were made.” “ He was in the 
world” said Saint John, “and the world was made by him.” 5 Following a false method, some 
of the Fathers — for instance Clement of Alexandria and Saint Augustine 6 —tried to read 
that truth into this opening word of Genesis. But it is one thing to say that all the details of a 
truth are implicitly contained in the broadest utterance of a truth, and it is quite another to 
assert that all those details of subsequent revelation were present to the mind of the priestly 
writer who penned this chapter. Luther saw how untenable was this casuistry, and Calvin, 
with the robust and honest common sense which distinguished him in all cases where his 
immediate prejudices were not involved, says “ it is too frivolous to interpret the word 
‘beginning’ as meaning Christ.” 

iii. With the preposterous fancies of the Jewish Kabbala we shall not concern ourselves, 
but we may here give one specimen of it. Because by anagram Bereshith becomes Bethisri, 
they said that the world was created in September ( Tisri ), 7 and the law, they said, begins with 
“ B,” because it is the first letter of Berakah — blessing. 


1 Their phrases were “ To ages of ages,” “ forever and beyond,” “ unto all generations,” etc. 

2 Compare Isaiah xl, 21. 3 Jeremiah x, 12. 

* The Doctrine of a personal Logos is first prominent in Philo. The nearest approach to it in pre-Christian literature is 

in the Wisdom of Solomon (ix, 1, xvi, 12, xviii, 14-15). 

5 John i, 10 (compare Psalm xxxiii, 6); Hebrews i, 2, xi, 3; Ephesians iii, 9 ; Colossians i, 16 ; Revelation iv, 11. 

0 Augustine, “ Confessions,” XI, viii, \ 9. 

7 For other specimens see my Bampton Lectures on “ The History of Interpretation,” pp. 34-37. 



ELOHIM DEFINED —THE ACT OF CREATION. 


89 


2. “ In the beginning God created.”—The word here used for God, as all but invariably 
by the Priestly writer (P), is Elohim. The word suggests important inquiries. 1 2 

i. It is a plural word and many Christian writers have believed that the plural indicates 
the mystery of the Trinity. Since “ it is usually construed with the singular, both of the 
adjective and of the verb, except when it signifies the idols of the heathen.” But the same 
remark applies to this view as to the fanciful and arbitrary interpretations of the word 
“Beginning”; great Christian writers so much opposed to each other as Calvin and Cardinal 
Bellarmine have rightly rejected this suggestion of Peter Lombard, the Master of Sentences. 3 
To Christians, of course, the idea lies in the word, but there is no trace that it did so to the 
ancient Israelites. 

ii. Nor, again, is it a correct view that the plural name of the one God is a survival of 
polytheism ; on the contrary, as Rabbi Jehudah Halevi says, in his “ Cozri ” (twelfth century), 
the word Elohim is rather a protest against the idolatry which gave the name Eloah to each 
personified power. He rightly says that Elohim represents God as the God of nature, with 
reference to his manifested power; whereas Yahveh refers to his personality, his relations to 
man as the God of Grace, and, above all, the covenant relation in which he stood to his people, 
Israel. Sack interprets Elohim as meaning “ a certain infinite, omnipotent, incomprehensible 
existence, from which things finite and visible have derived their origin.” 3 Naturally, then, 
“ Elohim ” was the general name of the deity, and was mainly used in speaking of him to the 
heathen, whereas Yahveh was his covenant name to Israel in particular. 

iii. Nor, again, does the name Elohim imply the conception of God as mingled up with 
that of the heavenly host. Angelology assumed no distinct and definite prominence in the 
minds of the Israelites till the days of the Exile and their familiarity with the religion of the 
Persians. 

iv. There seems to be little doubt that the Rabbis were right in interpreting the word 
“Elohim” as a simple “plural of majesty,” known grammatically as the “ pluralis excel- 
lentice.” The word connotes God in all his preeminence of infinitude and universality; first, as 
in Proverbs ix, 1, the plural cliolcmoth is used for the singular chohnali, to express wisdom in 
the abstract “ as including all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge ”; in the same way, the 
plural “Adonim” is used for Lord in Isaiah xix, 4; and “Baalim” 4 in Exodus xxi, 29; and 
Qedoshim . for the Holy One in Hosea xi, 12.° 

v. The tablets found at Tel el-Amarna, in Upper Egypt, show that in Babylonia also 
“ God ” was used for one supreme Deity. The usage became part of “ that language of 
Canaan” (Isaiah xix, 18) which the Hebrews adopted, and it must consequently have gone 
back to the earliest days of their history. 6 

3. “ In the beginning God created.” The word for created is the Hebrew Bard, a word 
almost exclusively set apart for the work, and especially the free creative work of God, wdiether 
physical or spiritual. (Psalm li, 12.) 7 Nothing is here distinctly said about “creation out of 
nothing ”; but it is implied, throughout. It is first distinctly formulated in II. Maccabees 
vii, 28: “God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.” 
In Hebrews xi, 3, we read the much more moderate expression “that what is seen hath not been 
made out of things that do appear.” Contact with Greek philosophy had made the Jews shy 

1 1 do not enter into the etymology of the word, because it still remains highly uncertain. 

2 The Fathers, in the infancy of criticism, were misled by ignorance of facts. Tertullian rightly observes that the name 

Jehovah rendered in the LXX. ripcog, '• Lord,” does not occur till after the account of the creation, but is unaware that the 
reading icvpiog, which represents the form Adonai, of which the vowels were superstitiously substituted for those of the 

ineffable Tetragrammaton, Yahveh. Chrysostom went altogether astray in supposing that Elohim and Yahveh were 
equivalents arbitrarily interchanged. 3 Sack, De usu nom. Dei. 

* Owner. 5 In the Hebrew, Hosea xii, 1: “ Faithful toward the All-holy One ” (Qedoshim). 

6 Sayce, “ The Higher Criticism and the Monuments,” p. 86. 

7 Exodus xxxiv, 10; Isaiah lxv, 17 ; Psalm cxlviii, 5; Jeremiah, xxxi, 22. 



90 


THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH—REVELATION AND SCIENCE. 


of speculating on that which lies beyond all human apprehension. The writer of Wisdom, 
therefore, says that God’s almighty hand made the world out of formless matter as in Plato, 
Timaeus, § 30. But no preexistent matter is here ever alluded to; and we must say with the 
Psalmist (xxxiii, 6): “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of 
them by the breath of his mouth”; for as Philo says: “With God to speak is to do.” 1 

4. “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” 

i. The particle “ eth ” before “ heavens ” and “ earth ” is merely the sign of the accusative. 
Nothing but the idlest perversion of fancy could dwell on the fact that its two component 
letters, aleph and taw, are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet; or see in it any 
cabalistic mystery referring to the ultimate essence — as it were the Alpha and the Omega of 
heaven and earth. 

ii. The Hebrews used “ heavens and earth ” to express the word “Universe,” for which 
they had no one word, any more than the Greeks had till Pythagoras gave them the fine word 
“Kosmos,” or “ Order.” Jeremiah used the phrase “ the All ” to express the same idea — “ He 
is the former of the All ” (Jeremiah x, 16). 

iii. The School of Shammai maintained that the heavens were created first and then the 
earth; but, since in Genesis ii, 4, we have “ Yahveli Elohim created the earth and the heavens,” 
the School of Hillel declared that the earth was created first. The Mishnaic Rabbis declared 
that they were created at the same time; for in Isaiah xlviii, 19 (Authorized Version), we read, 
“ My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the 
heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” 2 

I. In this simple majestic verse is summed up the inmost and the fullest significance of 
the entire story of the creation. If “every good gift and every perfect boon is from above, 
coming down from the Father of the Light, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow 
that is cast by turning”; 3 if man can attain to no truth save by that Holy Spirit, who is the 
light that “ lighteth every man as he cometh into the world ”; 4 then this voice expresses in 
the highest degree the result of a divine revelation to the Jewish race. 

For in five grand authoritative words it corrects and sets aside the errors of millions of 
mankind during millenniums of the world’s history. And this was its object: not the inculca¬ 
tion of scientific facts which were undreamed of till many centuries after it was uttered. The 
discovery of those facts was also a revelation ; the progress of science was the appointed way in 
which God made known much more than man could otherwise have ascertained of the means 
by which this Almighty power and wisdom had set in motion and controlled all material forces, 
thereby bringing order out of confusion and light out of darkness. The results of science were 
both a revelation of true knowledge and a source of stupendous power. They were granted to 
man in reward for the reverent use of his heaven-implanted faculties of reason and observation, 
applied to the study of God’s work. The revelation vouchsafed to us in Holy Scripture 
belongs to a wholly different order. The opening section of Genesis neither was, nor was 
intended to be, a chapter of physiography. Indeed, its details, regarded as facts and not as a 
philosopheme, are in some instances irreconcilable with science, or only reconcilable with it by 
the adoption of hypotheses so violent as to shock our sense of honest interpretation. But these 
details are but an accident, an expansion, an ornamental environment of the one essential revela¬ 
tion. Given the central fact, which was of infinite importance, that the Universe was the work 
of one All-wise and All-powerful Intelligence, it was natural that this inspired and inspiring 
truth should be expanded in accordance with immemorial human tradition, in such a way as 
seemed most in unison with observed phenomena, or with the inferences which they might 
naturally suggest. Writing of prehistoric ages in prescientific days, nothing was farther from 


‘Philo, “The Sacrifice of Abel,” \ 18. See Bishop Westcott’s note on Hebrews xi, 3. 

3 James i, 17 (Revised Version). 4 John i, 9 (Revised Version, margin). 


2 Tamid 316. 




POL YTHEISM— D UALISM— A THEISM— PANTHEISM. 


91 


the wildest dreams of the sacred writer than an exposition of the rudiments of astronomy, 
geology, or general physics. “The Scriptures,” as Archbishop Sumner said, “have never 
revealed a single scientific truth.” Nay, the abuse of their isolated expressions to distort them 
into a false and purely semblable agreement with the long results of time, is a method which 
was only resorted to after they had been, for ages, warped in an opposite direction from their 
true purpose. Scripture had been mishandled by the ignorance of priests, to oppose each 
science as it dawned; to retard the progress of mankind, to persecute and torment its best 
benefactors, and to disparage each new discovery of heaven-illuminated genius. The Scriptures 
have nothing to do with science. They belong to a different and a higher sphere. Intense as 
is the intrinsic interest of science, and vast as is the importance of its achievements for the 
material comfort of man, its importance is absolutely subordinate to the more inward revelation 
of himself which God vouchsafes to the spirit of man. In this sense it remains true that 
science can but be the handmaid or the sister of theology, and can but illustrate and reinforce 
the data which man derives from his unimpeded access to God through the inbreathing of 
Christ’s Holy Spirit. 

II. Consider, then, in this light the infinite and far-reaching importance of these five 
opening words of the Book of Genesis. 

The vast majority—all, indeed, but an insignificant fraction of mankind, of all races, in 
all ages, in every phase of civilization or of savagery, from the refined and brilliant Greeks to 
the wild North American Indians—have fallen in many forms into fundamental errors which 
these few words firmly and finally correct. 

i. The vast majority of mankind have been polytheists; they have worshiped “gods many 
and lords many.” 1 They have deified the heavenly bodies; or the forces and operations of 
nature; or their own worst passions; or birds and beasts and creeping things. Against count¬ 
less millions and all generations of polytheists in the past and in the present this verse reveals 
and declares that there is One God, not many gods. 

ii. Some races of mankind like the Persians, and some religious bodies like the Manichees, 
have believed that there are two gods — Ormuzd and Ahriman — one good and one evil. This 
verse declares that there is One God who is All good and All holy, and that there is none 
beside him. 

iii. Some isolated thinkers, and those whose natural and instinctive impressions they have 
disturbed, have been atheists; they have declared that there is no God. This verse affirms that 
there is a God and One God. 

iv. Many have imagined and taught that God is nothing but the anima mundi, or soul of 
the universe; and that, apart from it, he has no separate existence. They have given a literal 
and exclusive meaning to the view described by our own poet, that 

“All are but parts of one stupendous whole, 

Whose body nature is, and God the Soul ; 

That, changed through all, and yet in all the same ; 

Great in .the earth, as in the ethereal frame ; 

Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze, 

Glows in the stars and blossoms in the trees ; 

Lives through all life, extends through all extent, 

Spreads undivided, operates unspent.” 

These lines are perfectly true in the sense that “ God is in all things.” A false sense is given 
to them when it is believed that “ God is all things.” That is Pantheism. This verse teaches 
that God exists apart from and was anterior to all his works. 

v. Many have believed that there is indeed a God, but that there is no Divine Providence; 


I. Corinthians viii, 5. The Hindoo and other mythologies involve a belief in thousands of gods. 



92 


MATERIALISM—AGNOSTICISM—EARTH AND CHAOS. 


that the Supreme Being is careless of, indifferent to, the creatures whom he lias made. This 
verse implies and the whole subsequent revelation affirms that he is a Father to all creatures 
whom he has created, that his tender mercies are over all his works, and that all his works are 
very good. 

vi. Many have assumed that, though there is one God, yet matter is eternal and preex¬ 
istent ; that nothing could be made out of nothing; that matter, therefore, coexisted with God 
from the beginning; that matter is inherently evil; and that the existence of all evil in the 
world arises from the fact that matter existed apart from and independently of God. The 
sacred writer, without in any way entering into the question of matter, declares that God 
“created ” the heavens and the earth — i. e., the Universe, “the All.” 

vii. Many have believed that, though God is, we cannot know anything respecting him. 
That is agnosticism. This verse implies, and all the subsequent revelation affirms, that “ the 
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the 
things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead that “ the heavens declare the 
glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork that he hath “ left not himself 
without witness that “ in him we live, and move, and have our being that “ we may know 
him and that to know him is “ life eternal.” 

viii. Almost every error, then, of mankind, in general — every fundamental religious 
aberration, whether of philosopher or of savages — on the subject of the Supreme Being is 
corrected in these few words: Polytheism, Totemism, Sun-worship, Ditheism, Atheism, Pan¬ 
theism; the denial of Divine Providence; the belief in the preexistence and inherent evil of 
matter; the denial of our ability to know anything of God. To correct those errors was the 
object of the Revelation, and at the same time to set forth as an unquestionable eternal verity 
that “ there is hut one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of 
infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and 
invisible.” 1 

Verse 2. “ And the earth was without form (or waste) and void.” 

1. i. This is a description of the original chaos, the “ matter without form,” as it is called 
in Wisdom xi, 17, out of which God educed his kosmos. Up to some indeterminate moment in 
the ages of the eternal silence, there had existed only the vast abyss of substance in which all 
form was formless, order orderless; the “material beginning” 2 or the “material essence” 3 of 
Aristotle; colorless, shapeless, indistinguishable, without accidents, infinitely plastic. 

ii. It is a mistaken exegesis, contradicted by the whole of Scripture, that this verse must be 
taken as a statement separate from the first; and that this waste void was the already existent 
material out of which God made the world. It is clearly meant to he part of the “ heaven and 
earth ” which the previous verse has told us that God “ created.” The sacred writer is not 
guilty of the error of Philo, who must have believed in the eternity of matter, since he emphat¬ 
ically repeats the aphorism of Aristotle, “from nothing nothing comes,” and says that there 
are four causes of creation: the agent, God; the instrument, the Word; the material cause; 
the final cause, or end, God’s goodness. 

2. “ Without form and void.” These words in the original are very interesting because 
they form a sort of descriptive paronomasia or assonance — tohoo va bohoo. Such assonances, 
so far from being immature or childish, belong, in their due place, to the inmost mystery of 
language, and add no little to the force and fascination of words. They are in consequence 
found in very solemn and beautiful passages of Scripture. 4 Any attempt to distinguish 


1 Article I of the Church of England. 2 aW.«cdf apxv. 

3 vXua/ oboia, Metapliysic iv, 7, $1 ; Ueberweg, “ History of Philosophy,” i, 123. 

4 Job xxx, 19; Isaiah liv, 8, xxviii, 10, 13 ; Psalm xviii, 8; Nahum ii, 11; Zephaniah i, 15, etc., and see my chapter on 
Language, “ Language and Languages,” p. 232. 



COSMOS SUCCEEDS CHAOS—LIGHT FOLLOWS DARKNESS. 


93 


accurately between the two words seems impossible, though Rabbi Nachmanides refers tohoo 
to “ matter ” and bohoo to “ form.” 

iii. 1 his conception of the primitive chaos is common to all cosmogonies. 

3. “And darkness was upon the face of the deep.” 

1 he question whether darkness (the inseparable concomitant of chaos in all cosmogonies) 
was a separately existing entity and merely the absence of light was not probably one which at 
all presented itself to the mind of the writer. 

The word for “deep” is tehom (Psalm xlii, 7) from the onomatopoetic root “ hoom,” “to 
bubble ’ or “ boil. ’ It presents an interesting analogy to the Tiamat of the Assyro-Babylonian 
myth of creation, in which the chaos is reduced by Merodach to order and beauty. 1 2 

4. “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.” 

i. By “ the Spirit of God ” ( liuach Elohim) some have understood nothing more than “ a 
wind sent from God ” ■ which dried part of the waters. This does not accord with the context, 
which implies the action of God’s Spirit, or Breath. (Compare Psalm xxxiii, 6 — “By the 
Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his 
mouth.” Also Psalm civ, 30.) 

h. “Moved” is rendered by the LXX. E7te<pepero; but the truer sense is given in the margin 
of our Revised Version, “ was brooding upon ” as in Deuteronomy xxxii, 11, of the eagle gently 
hovering over her nest and young. The sense of the verb is exactly expressed in Milton’s 

“Dovelike sat’st brooding o’er the vast abyss, 

And mad’st it pregnant.” 

5. “ Upon the face of the water.” 

Here again it is needless to raise questions which either were not present to the mind of 
the writer, or, if they were, remained unsolved. We cannot tell whether he regarded the 
primordial chaos as being itself a watery mass, or whether, as in Psalm civ, 6, he thought of 
the earth as a solid mass lying beneath it. The question is not decided by verse 9. He may 
in some sense have shared the cosmogonic conception of Thales, found also among the Chinese, 
Egyptians, Mexicans, and others, that water was the primary element. 

WORK OF THE FIRST DAY. 

Verse 3. “And God said ‘ Light be ’ and ‘ Light was.’ ” 

i. In the original there is an indescribable grandeur in these four words. They are so 
remarkable as even to have excited the admiration of a pagan like Longinus, who, in his treatise 
on “ the Sublime,” quotes them as an instance of majestic speech. The best comment on their 
grandeur is that exquisite passage in Haydn’s “Creation,” in which the thrilling, pulsating, 
swelling waves of delicious sound end as in the bursting of one splendid billow of music, in the 
crash on the one word “ Light.” 

ii. “ God said.” “ Of course,” as Luther observed long ago, “ by ‘ said ’ is not intended a 
voice in the air.” God’s words represent his essential and self-effecting will. “He spake, and 
it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast ” (Psalms xxxiii, 9, clxviii, 5). 

iii. Light is here conceived of as something apart from the celestial bodies. Thus, too, it 
is thought of in the Book of Job, chapter xxxviii, 19-21 : 

“ Where is the way to the dwelling of light, 

And as for darkness, where is the place thereof ? 

That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, 

And that thou shouldest discern the paths to the house thereof ? ” 3 


1 Sayce, “ Chaldean Genesis,” pp. 59,109, 113. 

2 So most of the Rabbis ; Abn Ezra, Rashbam, etc., and the Targum of Onkelos, and Philo. 

3 Compare Job xxvi, 10. 



94 


SACRED NUMBERS—THE MOSAIC DAYS. 


The same conception recurs in many cosmogonies. The throne of Ormuzd is from the begin¬ 
ning a throne of light, and Indra the god of light is the firstborn of gods in the Hindoo 
mythology. 

Verses 4 and 5. 1. The glorious refrain which expresses God’s approval “ that it was 

good ” is repeated seven times in this chapter. 

1. The sacred artificiality of numbers is observable from the first. Three and Seven, the 
two numbers which dominate this chapter, are throughout Scripture, mysterious and symbolic 
numbers. Three expresses the concrete and perfect unity, especially of the Deity; Seven 
implies holiness and religious sanctification. 

ii. There is a divine and encouraging optimism of the loftiest character in this sevenfold 
blessing on the six days’ work. The division between the light and the darkness, and the 
names of Day and Night, given them by God, show that even the darkness is still as Homer 
calls it—“welcome, thrice-prayed for.” 1 The light-worshiping Persians also regarded dark¬ 
ness as having its own sacred and beneficent necessity. 

iii. When we are told that God called the light “ Day,” and the darkness “ Night,” it 
would be a silly literalism to take that clause to imply that God revealed the two Hebrew words 
yom (day) and laylah (night); or to infer from all incidental explanations, added for the sake 
of clearness, the supernatural inspiration of full-blown language. The origin of language is 
not here touched upon at all, and can only be ascertained as the facts of the material universe 
are ascertained — by patient observation and induction. 

2. “And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” 2 

i. The “ one day ” meant undoubtedly one civil day, not millions of years as harmonists 
idly and arbitrarily suggest. One object of the narration is to indicate the institution of the 
sabbath in accordance with the unvarying tendency of the priestly narrator to describe the 
origin of sacred ordinances. This object would be rendered meaningless if Day and Night were 
taken to mean anything we choose. Day can only mean what it means throughout the chapter 
and throughout the book. That the day of twenty-four hours could not have been marked by 
sunrise and sunset before the sun was created is not a question which crossed the mind of the 
writer. He knew nothing of the earth’s revolution on its axis, and he is moving in a sphere of 
the purely spiritual conceptions, with which alone he felt the smallest concern. The attitude of 
pragmatic literalism and prosaic lack of all imagination is the most entirely fatal to any right 
apprehension of this “ Epic of Creation ” in its ideal grandeur. 

ii. “ Evening ” is mentioned first in agreement with a natural and therefore universal 
conception that darkness must have preceded light. It is for this reason that the Greeks called 
a full day “ a night and a day,” 3 and we describe a week or two weeks as sennight or fortnight. 
An old border oath was: “ By God who made the world in six days and seven nights.” We 
find the same mode of reckoning among Athenians, Arabs, Moslems, Gauls, and Germans. 


SECOND DAY. 

(VERSES 6 TO 8.) 

1. God next created an expanse “in the midst of the waters,” to divide the waters which 
were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. He called the expanse 
“ heaven”; and evening was and morning was — a second day. 

i. The sky is here — ideally or actually — regarded and spoken of as a solid substance. 
The Hebrew word raqia (expanse) is derived from a root which means to “beat out,” 4 and 
the word implies in the strictest sense, a firmament. The notion of the heavens as a crystalline 


1 doTiiwb), Tf>i//w-og, “ Iliad,” viii, 488. 
4 See Exodus xxxix, 3. 


2 Not “ the first day ” as in King James Version. 


3 II. Corinthians xi, 25. 



THIRD AND FOURTH DAYS OF CREATION. 


95 


sky, in which the stars were fixed as golden nails, was held by some of the old Greek philoso¬ 
phers; and the Greek poets speak of heaven as “iron ” or “brazen.” This firmament supports 
the upper clouds and reservoirs ot rain, and divides them from the rivers and seas. It has, in 
poetic descriptions, doors and windows, and is supported by pillars. 1 The writer may have had 
the more scientific conceptions which we find in other parts of Scripture, 2 but they had no 
bearing on his present idea. 

iii. It has been noticed from the earliest times that after this day alone is omitted the 
blessing And God saw that it was good.” This is, indeed, added in the Septuagint after the 
sixth verse. Abn Ezra accounts for the omission by supposing that the work of the second day 
is only really completed on the third day. Some Talmudists suppose that the approving word 
was withheld because Gehenna was created on the second day. 3 In any case an eightfold 
repetition ot the formula would have interfered with the concinnity of sacred numbers which 
prevails throughout the chapter. 

THIRD DAY. 

(VERSES 11 TO 13.) 

The creative work of the third day consists in the separation of the sea from the dry land 
and the clothing ot the earth with vegetation — herbs, grass, and all seed-bearing plants; trees 
and all arboraceous shrubs which have their seeds in their fruit. Three kinds of vegetation are 
mentioned : “ greenness ” or green grass ( deshe ), which was believed to grow spontaneously ; 
vegetables and grain ( eseb ); and, collectively, all trees and fruit-bearing plants ( etz ). With this 
account we may compare the poetic description in Psalm civ, 5-16: 

He laid the foundations of the earth, 

That it should not be moved forever; 

Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a vesture ; 

The waters stood above the mountains. 

At thy rebuke they fled ; 

At the voice of thy thunder they hasten away ; 

They went up by the mountains, they went down by the valleys, 4 

Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them. 

He watereth the mountains from his chambers : 

The earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. 

He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, 

And herb for the service of man. 

The trees of the Lord are satisfied ; 

The cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted. 

FOURTH DAY. 

(VERSES 14 TO 19.) 

On the fourth day are created the celestial orbs which divide the day from the night and 
serve to mark the distinction of seasons, and days, and years, 5 as well as to shed light on earth 
from the firmanent of heaven. The two great lights, sun and moon, are specially placed in 

'Genesis vii, 11 ; Ezekiel i, 1-22; Job ix, 6, xxvi, 11, xxxvii, 18; II. Samuel xxii, 8 ; Psalms lxxviii, 23, civ, 3, cxlviii, 4; 
II. Kings vii, 2. 

2 Genesis ii, 6 ; Job xxvi, 7, xxxvi, 27; Jeremiah x, 13. Psalm cxxxv, 7. 

3 See P’sachim, 54a. “ But,” it adds, “ that the work of the second day was also good is implied in the word ‘ everything ’ 

in verse 31.” To this day, for this reason, Monday is regarded as an unlucky day by orthodox Jews. 

4 On margin, “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down.” 

5 Perhaps the expression “ for signs” may refer to the universal ancient belief that the movements of the heavenly 
bodies portended changes of time and states. 



96 


HEBREW SUBORDINATION OF MATTER TO JEHOVAH. 


heaven to rule the day and night. Two sublime words — “And the stars”—suffice to describe 
in the original the stupendous creation of the whole stellar universe. 

The JMToroth are “ orbs ” of light. The Septuagint renders the word by “ lamps,” the 
Vulgate by luminaria. The verses, short, unadorned, and simple as they are, constitute the firm 
protest of the chosen people against the worship of the sun, which was so predominant among 
the Persians; against the cult of the great Moon-god of the Babylonians; against the worship 
of the “Host of Heaven”; which has been so characteristic of many forms of polytheism. 
That the heavenly bodies have far wider and larger purposes than to give light to this fractional 
atom of a planet, which, for instance, only receives 1-230,000,000th part of the sun’s light, was, 
of course, unknown to the writer, and practically unrevealed to the human race till the days of 
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Laplace. Neither the Priestly writer nor any of his nation, 
during long millenniums, had the faintest conception of the unfathomable abysses of the aerial 
ocean, with its uncounted galaxies. Neither was such knowledge, intense as is its interest, and 
infinitely as it expands the narrow limits of our imagination, in any way essential to the salva¬ 
tion of the human race, or its deliverance from the idolatry of the creature to the worship of 
the Creator. 

The system of the Hebraic cosmogonist is, of course, geocentric, and to him all the stars 
are like cressets hung in the sky. 1 But what is of essential and eternal significance is that to 
him the Sun in all its indescribable splendor, “ going forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber, 
and rejoicing as a giant to run his course,” though 

“ His going forth is from the end of the heaven, 

And his circuit unto the ends of it: 

And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof, ” 2 

is still nothing but a created thing — a creature of the Being who has set his glory above the 
heavens. The Hebrew can admire and glory in the work of God’s hands, and climb by these 
sunbeams to “the Father of the lights.” 3 He can join—even with his imperfect and limited 
knowledge of the scientific facts which are now the heritage of every child — in impassioned 
bursts of poetry on the glory of creation; but the burden of them all is the goodness of the 
Almighty Creator, which inspires the inerrant refrain : 

“ O give thanks unto the Lord ; for he is good: 

For his mercy endureth forever. 

To him that made great lights: 

For his mercy endureth forever; 

The sun to rule by day: 

For his mercy endureth forever: 

The moon and the stars to rule by night: 

For his mercy endureth forever.” 4 

The glory of the Hebrew is that he is never a materialist; other nations — Babylonians, 
Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians—“worshiped and adored the creature more than the Creator, 
who is blessed forevermore.” But to the chosen people God has revealed himself as the 
Creator of the Universe. To the Jew it was always Yah veil himself, who “covered himself 
with light as with a garment, and spread out the heavens like a curtain ”; he could appeal to 
God and say 

“If I beheld the sun where it shined, 

Or the moon walking in brightness; 

1 It need hardly be said that nothing could possibly be farther from the mind of the sacred writer than the nebular 

hypothesis of Laplace. 

■ Psalm xix, 5, 6. 


3 James i, 17. 


4 Psalm cxxxvi, 1-9. 



ORIGIN OF ANIMAL LIFE—CROWNING WORK OF CREATION 


97 


And my heart hath been secretly enticed, 

And my mouth hath kissed my hand: 

This also were an iniquity to be punished by the judges: 

For I should have lied to God that is above. 1,1 

FIFTH DAY. 

(VERSES 20 TO 23.) 

On this day took place the creation of the fishes and the birds. The waters were bidden to 
swarm with swarms of living creatures, and the air with flying fowls. The great monsters and 
the fishes of the deep are called into being, and winged fowl, and God blessed them and bade 
them be fruitful and multiply. 

i. In speaking of the fish the conception of their teeming multitude is given in the word 
sharats, inadequately rendered by the LXX. “bring forth,” 2 and the Vulgate’s “produce.” 3 It 
is rather as in the margin of our Revised Version: “Let the waters swarm with swarms of 
living creatures.” 

ii. In the tannmim, “ great monsters,” some see an intended distinction between the 
mammiferous cetacea, which, like the whale, suckle their young, and other fishes. This is 
unlikely, because we find no trace of it anywhere else in the Bible; and tannin is simply 
derived from the root “ tdnan ” to stretch, including creatures like the serpent and the crocodile. 

iii. It is not'implied that the “birds of wing” were produced out of the waters, though this 

was the rendering of the Targums, of Luther, of the LXX., the Vulgate, and even of our King 
James Version. There is no certain reference to the belief that birds and fishes are closely 
akin. The translation is not “ Let the waters teem with the moving creature .... and 
fowl” (King James), but rather, as in the Revised Version, “Let the waters bring forth . .; 

and let fowl fly above the earth.” 

iv. The paronomasia of the blessing “ Be fruitful and multiply ” ( peroo ru'-reboo), is again 
repeated to the human pair in verse 28 and in chapter ix, 1. 

SIXTH DAY. 

(VERSES 24 TO 31.) 

These verses describe the crowning work of God in the creation of all animals and 
creatures of the earth and of man, as the glory and summit of created things, made in the 
image and likeness of God, intrusted with dominion over all living things, and with the duty of 
subduing and replenishing the earth. After the sea has teemed with fish and the air with birds, 
the earth also has to be filled. Whether the writer regards animals as made of the dust of the 
earth or springing out of it, as in Milton’s famous description, is not stated; but it is a concep¬ 
tion which we find in the Yahvist (ii, 19) and in other parts of Scripture (Psalm civ, 29; 
Ecclesiastes iii, 20), as well as in classical writers. 

Verse 26. “And God said, Let us make man.” 

i. The same question rises here as in the use of the plural Elohim. We ask with Isaiah 
(xl, 13, 14), “ Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught 
him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path 
of judgment, and taught him knowledge and shewed to him the way of understanding?” The 
word “ us ” has been regarded as implying God and Wisdom (or the Logos); or the Trinity; 
or God in conjunction with the Angels (iii, 22). It is probably only another instance of the 
plural of majesty. Dillmann, indeed, makes the objection that the use of the plural by kings 
or great potentates was but a custom of the Hebrews until they derived it from the Greeks and 
Persians, as in Ezra iv, 18; I. Maccabees x, 19; but, as the date of the Priestly writer is late, 

2 H-ayayhu. 


1 Job xxxi, 26-28. 


3 Producant. 



98 


THE SIMILITUDE OF MAN TO GOD. 


he may well have been acquainted with their usage, or may even have adojjted it from natural 
reverence. Thus in Joshua xxiv, 19, we have the plural Elohim of doshim, “ a Holy God,” 
in apposition to the singular pronoun “ he.” It is, however, something more than a mere plural 
of excellence. It involves the self-consultation of one whose manifold glories can only be indi¬ 
cated by a plural word. The LXX. read the plural, though the Talmudists say that to prevent 
mistake (and Rashi adds especially to exclude dualism) they read it in the singular, and that 
they made the same change in Genesis xi, 7. 

ii. “ Man ”—Adam. The derivation of the word is uncertain ; it cannot be from adamah, 
earth. The earth creatures are distinguished under three classes: The behemah (of which the 
plural is behemoth) implies the larger grass-eating cattle, including the elephant; the remes, 
all sorts of worms and reptiles; and the chayyath haaretz, the wild beasts. These are not 
specially blest, because they form but a part of the sixth day’s work. 

iii. In our image (tselem) and in our likeness ( d’moth ). Attempts have been made to draw 
a distinction between the two words tselem, “ image,” as implying general outward aspect, and 
d’moth, “ likeness,” as describing inward resemblance; but in usage they do not seem to be 
markedly separate, and either may be used alone, as tselem in Wisdom ix, 6, and d’moth in v, 1. 
The latter word is slightly more abstract in significance and is here used to intensify the 
former. 

iv. Wherein does the likeness and similitude of man to God exist ? 

a. Not in moral perfection, for man instantly fell; but solely in man’s God-given faculties 
— in reason and conscience, in self-realization, power of thought and imagination, and in 
freedom of the will. 1 

b. It is, of course, in no sense corporeal, since — except in poetic anthropomorphism — 
God is invariably represented throughout Scripture as a Spirit, without body, parts, or passions. 2 
Other nations imagined that their gods were simply men of surpassing size and beauty; but not 
so the Hebrews. It was needless, therefore, for Symmachus, in his version, to tone down the 
expression into “he made man erect”; or for other ancient versions in other places (Psalm viii, 
5; Genesis v, 1, ix, 6, etc.) to make the likeness to Elohim a likeness to angels. It is true that 
there was the sign of man’s dignity in “ the human face divine.” “ The vital spark of heavenlv 
flame ” was enshrined in a mortal tabernacle more perfect than that of all God’s other crea¬ 
tures, and such as inspired dread and awe into them (Genesis ix, 2); but the likeness of God 
is not transient and outward, it is subjective; it is eternal. 

c. And this was always rightly understood by the Jews. Thus, the son of Sirach says 
(xvii, 1-13) that “ The Lord created man of the earth, and turned him into it again ”; but that 
“ He made them according to his image,” in strength, dignity, dominion, understanding, speech, 
counsel, knowledge; in giving them the law of life for an heritage, making with them “an 
everlasting covenant,” shewing them his “judgments ” and “ the majesty of his glory,” that 
they might declare his works with understanding. 

d. Again in the Book of Wisdom we read “ God created man to be immortal, and made 
him in image of his own eternity.” A passage in the Talmud mentions five points in which the 
soul resembles God: (1) It fills the body as God fills the bones. (2) It sees and is unseen. 
(3) It supports the body as God supports the Universe. (4) It is pure as he is pure. (5) It is 
like God, hidden in innermost re.cesses. 3 But to these particulars of resemblance must certainly 
be added, with Saint Basil, man’s prerogative of the freedom of the will. 

e. It is in these senses, then, that God made man “ a little lower than Elohim,” 4 and 
“ crowned him with glory and honor,” however much he may be “ a thing of naught whose 


1 See I. Corinthians xi, 7 ; Ephesians iv, 24; Colossians iii, 10; James iii, 9. 

2 Exodus xx, 4 ; Deuteronomy iv, 12; Isaiah xxxi, 3, etc. 

3 Berachoth xvi, la. ‘Psalm viii, 5 ; Hebrews ii, 7-9. 



FILIAL RELATIONSHIP OF HUMANITY TO DEITY. 


99 


days pass away like a shadow.” In himself he is thus “the image and glory of God” (1. 
Corinthians xi, 7) and “made after the similitude of God” (James iii, 9); and when he has 
dimmed, though not obliterated, that divine image, Christ restores to him “ the new man, which 
is renewed unto [full] knowledge after the image of him that created him ” (Colossians iii, 10) 
— “ the new man, which after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth ” 
(Ephesians iv, 24 — Revised Version). 

f. This affinity of man with God was not unknown even to the heathen. Saint Paul 

reminded the philosophers of Athens of this fact, quoting to them Aratus and Callimachus. 1 
“The God,” he said, “that made the world . . . giveth to all life, and breath, and all 

things; and he made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth 

that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though 
he is not far from each one of us; for in him we live and move and have our being; as certain 
even of your own poets haye said: 

‘For we are also his offspring. 

Thus we find Sophocles, in his splendid chorus, dwelling on the mighty intellectual 
victories and attainments of man; and the Pythagoreans spoke of “ man’s kinmanship with 
God.” Xenophon says “the soul of man and other human qualities partake of the nature of 
the Deity,” and Cicero speaks of men as “ like the gods ” {Similes Deorum). Lucretius sings 
that “ we are all sprung from celestial seed.” Hipparchus calls our soul “ a part of heaven ”; 
Horace describes it as a “ particle of divine breath ”; and Juvenal says that we alone have 
had assigned to us an intellect worthy of veneration, and are “ capable of divine things,” and 
“ have received, transmitted to us from heaven’s high citadel, a moral sense which brutes prone 
and stooping toward the earth are lacking in.” Exactly the same conception is found in the 
cosmogonic mythologies of the Babylonians and Persians; and in the Greek myth of man’s 
receiving the soul from Athene after he had been fashioned in clay by Prometheus. 

g. Nor was this any idle theory born from the fumes and hallucinations of human pride. 
On the contrary, it was the central truth which gives grandeur to the beatings of man’s heart, 
inspires holiness into his aims and hope into his life. Moses again and again in his laws founds 
the feeling of humanity and of common brotherhood on the divine affinities of man. “ I am 
the Lord ” is a consideration which suffices as the basis for the most loving and tender regula¬ 
tions, just as in the New Testament there is an infinite pathos of appeal for all who suffer in the 
words “for whom Christ died.” No one has expressed the sanctifying dignity of these thoughts 
more nobly than Milton in his “ Reason of Church Government,” when he writes: “ He that 
holds himself in reverence and due esteem both for the dignity of God’s image upon him, and 
for the price of his redemption which he thinks is visibly marked upon his forehead, thinks 
himself both a fit person to do the noblest and godliest deeds, and far better worth than 
to deject and defile with such a debasement as sin is, himself, so highly ransomed and ennobled 
to a new friendship and filial relation with God. Nor can he fear so much the offense and 
reproach of others as he dreads and would blush at the reflection of his own severe and modest 
eye upon himself, if it should see him doing or imagining that which is sinful, though in the 
deepest secrecy.” 

h. In verse 27 the writer, filled with the sublimity of his own narration, seems to break 
into spontaneous rhythm to express his gladness : 

“ So God created man in his own image, 

In the image of God created he him ; 

Male and female created he them.” 

So mighty a thought seems to require emphatic repetition, for no question is raised here, nor 

1 Acts xvii, 24-29. 

9 



100 


THE DOMINION OF MAN—CREATIVE WORK CLOSED. 


any indication given, as to whether God created mankind in a single pair or in many pairs; 
nor is any difference of time indicated between the creation of Adam and that of Eve. 1 Such 
inquiries were foreign to the writer’s immediate aim. It is an error to assume that the divine 
image lias been altogether displaced by sin. It is asserted after the Fall as a reason for the 
punishment of every murderer. 2 Saint James says of the tongue “ therewith bless we the 
Lord and Father, and therewith curse we men, who are made in the image of God.” 

In verse 28, man, though classed among the terrena animantia, is endowed with dominion 
over all the living denizens of earth, and air, and sea, but in verse 29 he receives no permission 
to take their lives for food. 

i. To man is granted for his daily sustenance every herb, and the fruit of every tree; and 

every green herb is set apart also for the use of all the living creatures of air and earth. It is 
clear that the writer takes the view adopted in so many cosmogonies, that men in the golden age 
of their infancy were vegetarian in diet, and that man did not sustain his own existence by 
robbing innocent animals of theirs. This, too, is the state which, in the ideal of the prophets, 
is to replace the present ages of bloodshed and rapine in the golden Messianic days; “ The wolf 
shall . . . dwell with the lamb, . . . and the lion eat straw like the ox.” 3 Such 

a belief formed part of the religion of the Brahmins and Buddhists, as it did of the ancient 
Pythagoreans and Manichees. 

ii. It might have been objected to this view that, by the very law of their construction, the 
world of creatures is a world of rapine and prey, and that “ Nature, red in beak and claw with 
rapine,” shrieks against this creed. The answer is that the revealer of the past, like the 
prophet of the future, is not troubled with such difficulties. It did not occur to him to ask how 
carnivorous animals could eat straw like the ox. He is dealing not with the actual but with 
the ideal — not with “ ruined world and sinful man,” but with man in the time of his first 
innocence, and with an ideal world into which death had not yet intruded. 

iii. On the other hand, he does not disturb us with pictures of the superhuman sire, and 
impossible perfection of Adam. This is a favorite theme of the Rabbis in the Talmud and 
such fancies continued till later times, as when South says that “ a Newton was but the rubbish 
of an Adam.” 4 The writer of this chapter attributes to the first man no such supereminence, 
either of beatific vision or of moral perfection. He presents him to us simply as the father of 
the race, created after God’s similitude, which his posterity inherit, though much obscured 
by sin. 

Verse 81. At the close of his creative work, God contemplates it all and pronounces it to 
be not only “ good ” but “ very good.” Not only did “ the morning stars sing together and all 
the sons of God shout for joy,” but God himself, the Lord himself, rejoiced in his works. And 
evening was and morning was ; the sixth day. 

THE SEVENTH DAY. 

(GENESIS II, 1 TO 3.) 

The division of chapters is here altogether unfortunate. These verses belong on every 
ground to the first chapter and form part of the narrative of the Priestly writer (P). 

They furnish, in fact, one of the reasons for the preceding narrative, which, though it 
serves vastly higher ends, was doubtless intended by the writer, in accordance with the uniform 
design which runs through his entire work, to narrate the institution of the sabbath and explain 
its deepest sanctions. 

Six days sufficed for the completion of the heavens and the earth and “ all their host.” 
The word host ( tsaba) is here used generally of the stars of heaven and the living things of 


1 Compare Matthew xix, 4. 2 Genesis ix, 6. 

* Sermon “ On the State of Man before the Fall.” 


3 Isaiah xi, 7, lxv, 25. 



ORIGIN AND OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. 


101 


earth. Usually the word is applied to the stars only; or to the angels for whom they might 
stand as bright symbols; or to the forces of nature, the winds and lightnings. 1 In Nehemiah 
(ix, 6) “the heavens with all their host” are distinguished from “the earth and all that is 
therein.” 

“And on the seventh day God ended his work.” 

In the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, the old Syriac, the Book of Jubilees and the 
Bereshith Rabbah, for “ the Seventh day ” we have “ the Sixth day ” and it is not wholly 
impossible that the seventh (Hebrew, hashsh’bi’i) may have been confused with “ the sixth ” 

( hashshishi ) or may have been corrected into “ the sixth.” Another but dubious way of 
removing the difficulty is to translate “ finished ” as a pluperfect “ had finished”; 2 or the phrase 
may merely mean that the work ended with the beginning of the Seventh day. 

“And he rested on the Seventh Day.” 3 

When we speak of the “ rest ” of God, we are clearly in the region of analogy and 
anthromorphism, in which things divine and incommunicable are shadowed forth by the only 
language which is humanly intelligible. In another and higher sense God’s work never ceases. 4 
“Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator 
of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?” 5 And in another sense, there is never 
any pause in the divine operations; they are unresting as they are unhasting. Jesus answered 
them “ My Father worketh even until now, and I work.” 6 Again the word “ labor ” is only a 
dim and distant analogy. To speak is not to labor, to will is not to toil. But God gave the 
sabbath as a boon — a necessary as well as a blessed boon — to man ; and in order to sanctify it 
he based it on some incommunicable fact in which there is a sympathy between the divine and 
the human. “Ye shall keep the sabbath . . . . it is a sign between me and the children 

of Israel forever; for in six days Yahveh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he 
rested, and was refreshed.” 7 This is the reason why God blessed the seventh day, and why the 
writer emphatically repeats what he had said respecting the rest of God. How intensely the 
institution of the sabbath served the imagination and occupied the thoughts of the later Jews, 
we see from endless passages in the Talmud. It is related of Shammai that all his life he was 
eating for the honor of the sabbath. But Hillel had another way; all he did was in the name 
of heaven, as it is said (Psalm lxviii, 19, Revised Version, margin), “Blessed be the Lord, day 
by day.” 

It is only in the Priestly document that we find any account, or any traces, of a pre- 
Mosaic sabbath. The writer desired to place that merciful institution under loftier and earlier 
sanctions than such as arose from its being a simple ordinance of humanity, or a redemption 
from bondage (Deuteronomy v, 14, 15). 

Moreover, also, we read in Ezekiel (xx, 12, Revised Version, margin), “ I gave them my 
sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I the Lord do sanctify 
them.” Although the Jews were the only nation which gave to the idea of the sabbath its 
richest and most sacred meaning, yet the Assyrians also possessed the word sabbath, and called 
it a “ day of the rest of hearts.” In a calendar of the interesting month Elul we find the 7th, 
14th, 21st, and 28th days marked as dies nefasti, in which no work can be done, but they are 
also days of evil omen on which no sacrifice can be offered. 

Verse 4a. “ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were 
created.” 

i. All critics are practically agreed that the narrative of P ends here, to be resumed in 
chapter v, and many have supposed that this verse originally stood before the first verse of 

1 See I. Kings xxii, 19; Joshua v, 14; Psalm ciii, 21. 

2 So Calvin, Eichhorn, Gabler, Kalisch ; but Dillmann calls this ungrammatical. 

3 The name “ Sabbath ” is derived from shabath, “ to rest.” 

4 Psalm civ, 27-32. 5 Isaiah xl, 28. 6 John v, 17 (Revised Version). 7 Exodus xxxi, 14-17, 



102 


TRIALS OF CREATIVE DAYS—ORIGIN OF EVIL. 


Genesis and was placed here by the Redactor who united the various documents of Genesis into 
their present form. Certainly in the nine other instances of the recurrence of the ph rase 
“ These are the generations,” it stands at the beginning of a narrative, not at the end of it; and 
the tor doth (as in v, 1, vi, 9, x, 1) refers to what follows, not to what precedes. It is a phrase 
only found in P. 

ii. The word toVdoth is usually applied to persons, not to things, since it properly means 
“generations”; i. e., “begettings.” It is here applied by analogy to the material Universe. 
(Compare Psalm xc, 2). It is from this expression (sepher to/’doth), rendered by the LXX. 
Book of the Genesis (in Genesis v, 1), that we derive the name “ Genesis ” for the book which 
the Jews called from its first word Bereslnth. 

iii. In the word “when they were created” ( b'hibbar'dm), the “li” is written small. This 
was probably meant by the Massoretes to indicate that there was a variant reading. The 
Kabbalists gave mystic reasons for the small letter. They said it indicated that all things should 
also fade and perish; or that, by transposition, the word may he read “on account of 
Abraham.” Here, then, at the close of one account of the creation, we must pause for some 
separate consideration, which want of space compels us to treat in the briefest manner. 

1. It should be noticed as regards the Six Days’ work that it is arranged according to a 
definite scheme in two parallel parts, thus: 


First Day, Light. 

Second Day, Water and the heavens. 


Third Day, Dry land and vegetation. 


Fourth Day, The orbs of light. 

Fifth Day, Fishes, the inhabitants of 
the waters, and birds of the 
heavens. 

Sixth Day, Animals and man. 1 


It is obvious that the two triads of days have some relation to each other. The first three 
complete the inanimate creation ; the fifth and sixth the animate creation. The first three days 
have been called “the three separations of light from darkness, water from water, and land 
from water.” The fourth day seems, in this respect, to break the order; and some have imag¬ 
ined that there is a silent reference to the ancient and widespread notion of the constellations 
as living creatures; hut of this there is little or no certain trace elsewhere in anv of the 
conceptions of the Hebrews. 

2. The notion that God is the cause or creator of evil, though there is a different and 
secondary sense in which God, as the permitter of catastrophe and misfortune, may be called its 
creator ’— is carefully excluded. Moral evil is due exclusively to the abuse of the free will of 


man. 


o. The parallels to the Hebrew cosmogony are numerous and cannot be given at length. 
a. The Babylonian account of the creation is given in a composite form by the Chaldean 
Berosus in his “ History of Babylonia.” It forms part of an epic which has been discovered 
in the cuneiform tablets of Babylonia and Assyria. It is perhaps not older than the seventh 
century B. C. It begins with describing the chaos of the deep (Tiamat); recognizes six days; 
and follows much the same order of creation as Genesis. The resemblances extend even to 
words; but the confused polytheism and materialism of the Babylonian cosmogonial myths are 
in sharp contrast with the simplicity of the Bible. Where the Assyrian or Babylonian poet 
saw the action of deified forces of nature, the Hebrew writer sees only the will of the one 
Supreme God. The Assyrian poem is mainly a paean in honor of the Sun-god, and the triumph 
of light over darkness. There is no such antagonism in Genesis. “The Tel el-Amarna tablets 
have proved that Babylonian influence was strongly felt in Canaan before its conquest by the 
Israelites.” 


1 St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out long ago that the first three days were mainly days of preparation and separation the 

last three of adornment and use. 2 Amos iii, 6; Isaiah xlv, 7. 3 James i, 13. 



ANGIE XT COSMOGONIES—LITERALISM ABANDONED. 


103 


The following words occur in the Chaldean account of creation (first tablet): 

“ When the upper region was not yet called heaven 
And the abyss of Hades had not yet opened its arms, 

When the chaos of waters gave birth to all of these, 

And the waters were gathered into one place.” 

From the fifth tablet we find that the Babylonians also made the sabbath coeval with creation : 

“ He fixed up constellations whose figures were like animals, 

And from the days of the year he appointed festivals. 

The moon he appointed to rule the night, 

Every month without fail he made holy assemblies. 

On the Seventh Day he appointed a holy day 
And to leave all business he commanded.” 1 

h. One of the oldest of the Hindoo cosmogonies may be found in the Laws of Manu, i, 5, ff. 

c. The Greek views are given by Hesiod, “Theogonia,” 116, ft'., and are examined in 
Zeller, “Philosophic dev Gricchen ,” I, pp. 71-89. 

d. The Egyptian are given by Brugsch, “Rel . u. Mythologie,” 1888. 

e. The Phoenician views are found in Philo Byblius (preserved by Eusebius, “ Prceparatio 
Evangelica ,” I, 10). 

/. The Persian are given in the “ Zend A vesta.” In all the other cosmogonies there are 
points of resemblance more or less close to the sacred narrative. They prove the wide diffusion 
of a common tradition. It is unnecessary and impossible here to enter into details. A brief 
but admirable sketch of “ancient cosmogonies is given by Dillmann, “ Genesis,” pp. 1-12. 

4. The blessed and eternal truths which are predominant in this chapter, of which the 
institution of the covenant-day of rest is the attestation, are 

i. That God is the Almighty Creator of the Universe. This is the most fundamental truth 
of all, and its truth has been again and again attested even by men of marked skeptical bias, 
who have, indeed, in many instances, been led to the full acceptance of it after long years of 
agnosticism or unbelief. 

ii. That he created all things in absolute accordance with his own will, and after the 
archetypal ideas in his own mind. 

iii. That man is the supremest among the works of God’s earthly creation. 

iv. That all which God creates is good, and not evil. Thus the writer flings the only 
bridge which can be thrown over those vast and inconceivable abysses which separate the 
organic from the inorganic, and the animate from the inanimate; which separate the mineral 
from the vegetable—say, the rock from the faintest film of gray or orange-colored lichens which 
grow on it; which separate even the highest form of vegetable life from the lowest animal life ; 
the oak from the tiniest insect on its leaves; and which separate the highest of the animals 
from man. 

5. The story of creation may be understood in various ways. In former ages, and down 
to our own days, it was for the most part understood in strict literalism; but that view is now 
all but universally abandoned, and it may be seriously doubted whether such was even the 
intention of the writer. 

i. Ith as been subjected to all kinds of violent hypotheses by which, for instance, day may 
mean millions of years, or in which millions of years may be supposed to elapse between the 
second and third verses; in order to force it into decent accord with the certain discoveries of 
astronomy and geology. Such attempts are wholly unsuccessful; the narrative cannot by any 


1 See a full translation in George Smith, “ Chaldean Genesis,” pp. Gl-112. 



104 


LITERAL AND IDEAL INTERPRETATION CONTRASTED. 


extremes of conjecture be made to harmonize closely or continuously with scientific facts. The 
notion that the earth was made in six days; that each of the great phases of creation sprang 
into being at an instantaneous word; that the present world was created some 6,000 years 
ago; that the sun and stars were called into existence after the earth; that all kinds of vege¬ 
tation were created first, then all cetaceans, fishes, and birds, then all beasts and reptiles, and 
then man, are views which stand in discord with what we have been taught by the splendid 
labors of science. The faintest semblance of harmony between Genesis and physical science 
can only be obtained by a licentious artificiality and casuistry of exegetic invention. “ That 
the earth is a ball which is always turning upon its axis and at the same time pursuing its rapid 
course round the sun ; that the whole earth which seems so great to us is no more in comparison 
to the universe, than a single grain of sand on a seabeach thousands of miles in length ; that 
the sun alone is a million and a half times larger than our globe — all this was unknown to the 
Israelites. For them the earth was a disk washed round by the ocean, over which the firma¬ 
ment rose like a giant cupola, while sun, moon, and stars moved on the inner surface of this 
vault.” 1 We repeat that “The Scriptures have never yet revealed, nor were they ever intended 
to reveal, a single scientific truth.” The false prejudice which led men to assume that they were 
meant for this purpose led to the cruel priestly tyranny and violent religious intolerance which 
has for so many centuries hindered knowledge, thwarted progress, and persecuted those great 
benefactors of mankind, who set forth to us the revelation of God in his works. Romish priests 
made Galileo abjure, on his knees, the truth of the Copernican system. Spanish priests 
denounced the enlightened views of Columbus as a blasphemous heresy. English priests 
imprisoned Roger Bacon, and abused and anathematized the pioneer of geological science. In 
such conduct they acted after their kind. They behaved like the Chinese who piled up their 
sacred crockery in the path of the first locomotive, hoping thereby to stay its course. It is 
time that we should prevent the sanctity of Scripture from being ever again abused, as it has 
been in the past, by ignorance and human dogmatism to arrest progress and darken counsel, to 
light the balefires of the Inquisition, to sanction the falsities of the Jesuit and to rivet the fetters 
of the slave. 

ii. The narrative has been interpreted ideally , and this at least is certain, that the ideal 
interpretation, while it leaves, on one side, all questions which have their origin in preconceived 
dogma, and does not attempt to remove self-created difficulties by schemes of impossible 
casuistry which alienate straightforward minds, yet goes to the heart of the instruction which 
the writer most certainly regarded as supremely precious, and tries to grasp those truths which 
are at once indisputable, and are of intrinsic and eternal significance. 2 The object of the 
writers of Holy Writ was not to anticipate scientific discoveries, but to make known all that is 
necessary for the inspiration of man’s life and the salvation of man’s soul. 

Let me quote on this subject the testimony of a late eminent geologist, Dr. Buckland, dean 
of Westminster. He saw, as many men of science have seen, the true meaning of the first 
chapter of Genesis. “The earth,” he says, “from her deep foundations unites with the celestial 
orbs that roll through boundless space, to declare the glory and show forth the praise of their 
common Author and Preserver; and the voice of natural religion accords harmoniously with 
the testimonies of Revelation in ascribing the orgin of the universe to the will of one eternal 
and dominant Intelligence, the Almighty Lord and Supreme First Cause of all things that 
subsist, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, ‘before the mountains were brought forth, or 
even the earth and the world were made, God from everlasting and world without end.’ ” 


1 Oort, “The Bible for Learners,” Boston, 1878, Vol. I, p. 39. 

2 No reconciliation of the six days into geological periods is necessary. It is certain that the author of the first chapter 
of Genesis, whether Moses or someone else, knew nothing of geology or astronomy. Bishop Worcester, “Dictionary of the 
Bible,” Vol. I, p. 763. 



DIVERSITIES IN THE MOSAIC RECORD. 


105 


The true comment on the significance of the first chapter of Genesis is the eighth Psalm : 
“O Lord, our Lord, 

How excellent is thy name in all the earth ! 

Who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 


When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, 

The Moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained ; 

What is man, that thou art mindful of him ? 

And the Son of Man that thou visitest him? 

For thou hast made him but little lower than God, 

And crownest him with glory and honoi\ 

Thou madest him to have dominion over the work of thy hands ; 

Thou hast put all things under his feet. 

O Lord, our Lord, 

How excellent is thy name in all the earth ! ” (Revised Version.) 

CREATION AND EDEN. 

(GENESIS II, 46 TO 25.) 

We now begin the separate narrative of the creation by the Jehovistic writer (J). He is 
a writer who throws over his narrative an intensely interesting and human coloring. His 
style is vivid, earnest, simple, frankly anthropomorphic (ii, 7, 19, 21, 22, iii, 8, 22, etc.). He 
occupies himself very little, or not at all, with legalistic and ceremonial institutions, but deals 
exclusively with the highest moral considerations. 

That the authorship is different from that of the previous chapter is obvious at once from 
the wide diversities (1) of object, (2) of details, and (3) of style. 

1. In this chapter, though he gives a summary account of the creation, the author is far 
more concerned with the deepest and most absorbing of all human problems — the nature and 
the fall of man. 

2. His retrospective narrative of the origin of the world cannot have been meant to be 
supplementary to the former, because it differs very widely from it. “ In the first cosmogony 
vegetation is immediately produced by the will of God (i, 11, 12); in the second, its existence 
is made dependent on rain, and mists, and agricultural labors (ii, 5, 6): in the first, the earth 
emerges from the waters; in the second, it appears dry, sterile, and sandy: in the first, man and 
his wife are created together (i, 27); in the second, the wife is formed later, and from a part of 
man (ii, 21-23): in the former, man bears the image of God, and is made the ruler of the 
whole earth (i, 26, 27); in the latter, his earth-formed body is only animated by the breath 
of life, and he is placed in Eden to cultivate and to guard it (ii, 7, 15): in the former, the birds 
and beasts are created before man (i, 20, 24, 26); in the latter, man before birds and beasts 
(ii, 7, 19). It is true that the differences are mainly in subordinate, and so to speak incidental, 
details; and it is also true that they can be explained away by false grammar ( e. g ., by turning- 
perfects into pluperfects) and all manner of untenable casuistries. But these differences — 
which are wholly unimportant as regards the lofty spiritual purpose of the narrator — lie patent 
before every clear and truthful reader. 

3. The style of the writers also differs. 

In P the word for God’s creating is bara; in J it is asah , and yatsar. In P we have 
“beasts of the earth”; in J “beasts of the field.” In J we have frequently recurring phrases 
which in P do not occur or only rarely. Above all, in J we have Yahveli (“Jehovah”) 
almost throughout; in P we have Elohim throughout till we come to Exodus vi, 3. “The 
whole of this second narrative,” says Dean Payne Smith, “is evidently anthropomorphic.” 


10(3 


YAHVEH-ELOHIM—DERIVATION OE ADAM. 


In the previous history Elohim commands and it is done. Here he (or rather Yah veil) “ forms, 
and builds, and plants, and breathes into his work and is the companion and friend of the 
creatures he has made.” 1 

In chapter ii, 4 h, we are at once met by Yahveh-Elohim (“the Lord God”) in the place 
of the Elohim of the first chapter. It is remarkable that except in Genesis the combination 
Yahveh-Elohim only occurs in the Pentateuch in Exodus ix, 30. If the Yahvist originally 
used the combination here, it could only have been to point out that by Yahveh he meant the 
same One and Supreme God as the one mentioned in the previous chapter. But, since the date 
of P is probably far later than the date of J, and since, therefore, this is the earlier of the 
narratives, it is most probable that the combination of the two divine names is really due to the 
final Redactor — whether Ezra or another — who united into one book the ancient narratives. 

We are here shown a rainless earth (verses 5 to 7) on which was no vegetation; on the 
surface of this dry plain arose a fertilizing rain which watered the ground. Then Yahveh- 
Elohim formed the man ( ha-ad am ) out of the dust of the ground ( adamah ), and breathed into 
his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. 

i. We note first that Adam is rather a collective than an individual name — not Adam, but 
“ the Adam.” 

ii. Next, by one of those deep-reaching paronomasia of which the sacred writers are fond, 
Adam is connected with, if not derived from, adamah (earth), just as in Latin it was (errone¬ 
ously) fancied that homo was connected with humus. The Jews were “ analogists,” not 
“anomalists”—that is, they believed in the innate force and sacredness of words; hence they 
supposed that language was stamped with an inherent and sacred fitness which gave mysterious 
meanings even to its assonances. 

Further, since man’s mortal body “returns to the dust as it was” (iii, 19; Ecclesiastes 
xii, 7; Job x, 9), it was natural to regard it as made of dust or clay. We find a similar belief 
alike among the polished Greeks, the practical Romans, the thoughtful Hindoos, and the wild 
North American Indians. 

iii. Adam is not, however, derived from adamah “earth.” Josephus derives it from adam, 
“ red,” because virgin earth is red. 2 Others derive it from dm, which is equivalent to dimoth 
(Ezekiel xix, 10, Revised Version, margin), because man is made in the image of God. From 
the inscription on the sarcophagus of the Phoenician king, Eshnnmazar, we find that adam 
was sometimes used in the sense of dam, “blood.” It is hardly worth while to mention other 
conjectures, and, in point of fact, the true derivation of the word Adam remains undiscovered. 
It was a far deeper part of the writer’s object to point out that the soul of man is a breath, a 
gleam, an effluence of the Divine. “Thou hast granted me life and favor,” says Job, “and 
thy care hath preserved my spirit.” Man became a living being “in whose nostrils is a breath” 
(Isaiah ii, 22). 

iv. Of the various heathen parhelia, so to speak, of this narrative we may specially note 
the legend how Prometheus made a man of clay which the gods inspired with life. There 
is a fine ancient gem representing the helpless clay form upheld by the hands of its fashioner, 
while over its head Athene holds a butterfly—the Psyche, or type of life. In the Koran, the 
first man was called “Adam,” “the chosen of God.” 

Verse 8. “The Lord planted a Garden in Eden, eastward, and there he placed the 
new-made man that he might till it.” 

The primeval “ Garden in Eden ” 3 is found also in many primeval mythologies, and man 
was, by the nature of the case, primitively an agriculturalist. These statements belong to the 
simple framework of the lovely and pathetic narrative which enshrines the deep psychological 

1 “Genesis,” p. It). 2 Josephus, “Antiquities,” I, 1, ?2. 

3 For allusions to the Garden of God see Genesis xiii, 10 ; Joel ii, 3; Isaiah li, 3; Ezekiel xxviii, 13. 



MAN IN EDEN—THE FOUR RIVERS. 


107 


philosopheme of the Fall of Man. In all man’s speculations on his earliest past he has imag¬ 
ined a golden age — an age of simplicity and innocence. Here the innocence is rightly 
represented as only passive and negative. It is not the innocence of formed choice, but the 
nescience of positive ill doing, before the conscience was awakened by the first act of transgres¬ 
sion. There is in the calm sanity of the sacred story, no trace whatever of the fantastic 
Rabbinic legends which represented Adam as a giant of immense strength, angelic beauty, and 
superl 1 uman i ntel lect. 

^ erse 9. Having placed the man in the garden, God clothes it with a rich and pleasant 
vegetation and in the midst of it he placed the Tree of Life, 1 and the tree of the knowledge of 
good and evil. 

Whether there were any other mysterious reasons for the choice of the symbol of the Tree 
of Life growing in the midst of the garden we cannot tell, but there is probably a deep signifi¬ 
cance in its juxtaposition to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for according to the 
T ahvist it was only after the plucking of the forbidden fruit that Yah veil said, “ Behold the 
man is become as one of us.” This implied that the plucking of the fruit, if it had ruined and 
perverted his nature, had also in some measure widened its horizon, and made it necessary to 
prevent the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life. A tree in its exceeding beauty is naturally 
regarded as an emblem of life, and is hence found in many mythologies. We find it on the 
frescoes of Babylon and Assyria. It is the Haoma of the Persians, “ the king of trees,” and 
the Indian Katpawiksham, the pi/pel of immortality ; and the esthetic Ygdrasil of the northern 
sagas, whose leaves are the lives of men. 

1. The next live verses (10, 11, 12, 13, 14) are occupied with a description of the position 
of the Garden of Eden. From Eden went forth a river (nahar), and branched thence into four 
heads ( roshmi ), Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates. 

i. The Euphrates is simply mentioned without any description of its course, since its 
name would be familiar to Hebrew readers, to whom, as often in the Old Testament, it was 
known as “ the great river,” and even as “ the river.” The etymology of the name remains 
uncertain. 

ii. Scarcely less well known was the Hiddekel, or, to give it its Aryan name, the Tigris, 
called from the old Bactrian tighri “an arrow,” the swift or arrowy stream. 2 It is vaguely 
described as flowing “ before ” ( qidmath ), literally in front of, Assyria. 

iii. The Pison is described as “ compasing the whole land of Havilah,” which produces 
gold, bdellium, and the shoham-stone. a. The name Havilah is of very uncertain mean¬ 
ing. In Genesis x, 7, Havilah is a “ son ” of Cush, and in x, 29, a son of Joktan. From this 
we cannot tell whether the inhabitants were originally descendants of Ham (Ethiopians), 
or were Semitic, or a mixture of both. The name is perhaps derived from chol, “sand.” 
Havilah and Sliur are distant extremes of the realm of Ishmael’s descendants in Genesis xxv, 
18 (I. Samuel xv, 7). Perhaps Havilah is a country between the Arabian and Persian gulfs. 
There are no certain traces of the name. In Genesis x, 7, 29, we find it in juxtaposition 
to Sheba and Opliir. Various writers have previously identified it with Colchis, with Chlavisci 
on the Caspian, with Kampila in Northwest India, with Aras, and other places, h. The 
productions of the country do not help us to identify it. Gold is found in many countries. 
What bdellium ( b’dolach ) is remains uncertain, as well as the derivation of the word. It may 
be a fragrant and transparent gum or crystal ; or pearls, c. The shoham stone may be the 
beryl, or clirysoprase, or the onyx. It has also been identified with other varieties of chalcedony 
— the sardonyx and sardius. 

The name Pison means “ the burster forth.” 


1 The “ Tree of Life ” became a proverbial phrase. Proverbs iii, 18, xi, 30, xiii, 12, xv, 4 ; Revelation ii, 7, xxii, 2, 14. 

* Daniel x, 4. 



108 


THE SITE OF EDEN. 


iv. The Gihon is described as “ compassing ” the whole land of Ethiopia. This name also 
means “ the burster forth.” No one has ever identified the Pison or the Gihon, or made the 
geography indicated otherwise than wildly impossible, if the names of countries be taken in 
their only recognized significance. Of what use can further inquiry be when scarcely any two 
inquirers even now agree with each other? The Pison has been taken for the Nile (Saadia, 
etc.), the Ganges (Josephus and the Fathers), the Indus (Cosmas Indicopleustes), the Phasis 
(*Reland, etc.), the river Baisch, in Arabia (Sprenger). The Gihon has been identified by the 
Fathers with the Nile (which would then have to rise in Asia, and flow round Ethiopia), the 
Ganges (Cosmas and Bertheau), the Indus (Redslob), the Araxes (Reland, and others) the 
Phasis (Link and Rosemiiller), the Halys (Kitto), the Danube (Ephrem Syrus), and many other 
rivers, including the Jordan. Friedrich Delitzsch regarded it as a canal; others as an arm of 
the sea, such as the Persian Gulf, and Josephus as part of the Ocean Stream. 

Is it not, then, worse than idle to enter into interminable, tedious and wholly useless 
disquisitions as to the site of Eden ? One theory is that the courses of all the rivers have been 
entirely and permanently altered by the Deluge — in which case further investigation is 
certainly superfluous. 

“The Garden was in Eden.” The name tells us nothing. The LXX. and Vulgate make 
an etymological error in connecting Eden with the meaning “ delight,” “ loveliness,” for, as 
Schrader shows, the word is not Semitic at all, but is the Assyrian word i-di-nu “a field,” or “a 
plain.” 

Hosts of writers have devoted many pages and even entire books to the discovery of the 
site of Paradise. The results have been so monstrously discrepant as to show the utter futility 
of such disquisitions. It has been located by different inquirers in Palestine, in Arabia, in 
Persia, in Bactria, in India around the Caucasus, in Syria, in the Canary Islands, and outside 
the earth altogether — beyond the Ocean Stream. Indeed, scarcely any part of the habitable 
globe lias remained without the honor of being regarded as the happy abode of our first parents. 
Warren, in an elaborate monograph, placed it at the North Pole, and others at the Mountains 
of the Moon. And if we had sufficient data to show us what exact spot was intended, wherein 
should we be the wiser ? All that we can say is that the sacred writer seems to place the cradle 
of mankind, as the Persian legend does, somewhere on the tablelands of Armenia; but his 
concern with geographical questions was quite infinitesimal. His much deeper aim is to 
indicate the origin of sin in the heart of man. Only two considerations seem possible. 

i. Some suppose these verses (10 to 14) to be a later gloss of a pragmatic character, inserted 
into the text by one who saw in the story of the Fall a material history rather than an 
etliopoeia. There is no evidence, textual or otherwise, in proof of this view. 

ii. The other sees nothing more than an indication of the general conviction that the 
human race, or at any rate those families of the human race with which alone the writer was 
immediately concerned, originated somewhere in Central Asia. In attempting a closer 
geographical indication the Yahvist could write only from the standpoint of the universal lack 
of geography in an age when there were no maps, and no surveys, and only very limited 
voyages or travels; and in which knowledge of the earth’s surface was of the most elementary 
description. The writer, perhaps seven centuries before Christ, hardly shows greater unac- 
quaintance with the subject than is shown by Cosmas Indicopleustes, who wrote more than five 
centuries after Christ. If even Josephus, writing 90 A. D., could be capable of an error so 
astounding as to regard the Ganges and the Nile as branches of the same river, how can we be 
surprised at similar ignorance of details, wholly apart from his general purpose, in this ancient 
Hebrew whose knowledge in such subjects was simply that of his ow r n day ? 

The general conception of Eden corresponds with that of the Greek Hesperides; the 
Hindoo Mount Meru, guarded by dragons and watered by four rivers; the Persian Heden, 


THE FIRST COMMAND—BEGINNING OF LANGUAGE. 


109 


where Ahriman tempted the first men in the shape of a serpent; and the Chinese Kuen-lun, 
with its four streams which fertilize the world. 

THE FIRST MAN AND THE FIRST COMMAND. 

(GENESIS II, 15 TO 17.) 

The Adam is brought to the Garden and is placed there in a region of delight, but not that 
he may luxuriate in idleness. He is set to till and to guard it. The tilth we can understand, 
for it would be very easy and delightful, not in “ the sweat of the brow ” as in the stubborn soil 
which brought forth thorns and thistles (iii, 17). What is meant by “guarding it” we are not 
told. In the Persian legend Ormuzd bids men guard their home of bliss from the cruel 
demonic forces of nature, which are under the sway of Ahriman; but there is no room for 
such a view here, though Delitzseh adopts it. The old Jewish Book of Jubilees says (chapter 
iii) that the man was to guard Eden against wild beasts; hut neither is that easy to understand. 
The man is allowed to eat of every tree, even of the Tree of Life. In accordance with the 
universal belief of the ancients he is a vegetarian. But he is sternly forbidden to eat “ of the 
tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” and that for his own sake, since “ in the day— i. e., 
when—thou eatest thereof, dying, thou shalt die.” The death spoken of is, as so often in 
Scripture, spiritual and moral death, so that sin is death. It is perhaps needless to render with 
Symmachus, “ thou shalt become liable to death.” 

The paradise of the race is here assimilated to the paradise of childish innocence in the 
childhood of every individual, before the child has learnt “ to refuse the evil and choose the 
good ” (Isaiah vii, 16). It is the knowledge, and the subsequent choice, of evil instead of good 
which is the perverting and deathful force in the soul of man. 

THE CREATION OF WOMAN. 

(GENESIS II, IS TO 24.) 

Man was lonely. In the narrative of P (Genesis i, 27) we are told of man, as of the 
beasts : “ Male and female created he them.” Here he is solitary in the midst of paradise, and 
God pitying his condition, seeks a helpmeet for him ; literally “ at his side.” Bo, to give man 
companionship, God made the beasts and the birds out of the ground. The attempt to 
harmonize this with the first chapter by rendering the verb “ had made ” is a grammatically 
untenable resource of harmonists. 

In the next verse we have a curious glimpse into the views of the sacred writer respecting 
the Origin of Language. The notice could appear to him by no means important, because, in 
the “ analogist ” views of the Jews, the name of anything seemed to bear a stamp of its essential 
nature. Nothing is more probable than that animal names formed a main part of the earliest 
attempts at human language, and that, as was the all but invariable primitive resource, they 
were onomatopoetic, i. e., in vocal imitation of natural sounds. 

Man exercised his heaven-implanted faculty of language in naming the animals; but there 
was no real companionship for him in them ; no sufficiently close homogeneity of nature. 1 
“Adam,” says South, “ came into the world a philosopher, which sufficiently appears by his 
writing the nature of things upon their names.” There is an unfathomable abyss between the 
intelligence of the most advanced animal and the lowest of the human race. 

Then God created 2 woman (Genesis ii, 22). The formation of Eve is narrated in the most 
naively anthropomorphic manner. God cast Adam into a deep sleep, took out one of his ribs. 

'“A helpmeet for him,” literally, “A help as before him,” or “corresponding to him.”— Spurred. In the clause above 
“ Adam ” appears as a proper name; in this chapter and elsewhere it is generic, “ the Adam “ the man.” 

2 Banah, literally, “ budded.”—King James Version, margin. 



110 


THE CREATION OF WOMAN. 


God molded it into a woman, and brought her to the man. 1 He instantly recognized the 
intimate closeness of her relation to himself, and called her woman ( ishshah ) because she was 
taken out of man (ish). The Vulgate keeps up the assonance by rendering “ woman ” virago 
and “ man ” vir, as Luther afterward did by his mannin and mann. 

This story embodies a vivid ideal upon which the writer bases a truth of eternal validity — 
the indissoluble sanctity of the marriage bond, as forming the commencement of a new home 
life, which is even to supersede the sacred home life of earlier years. 2 

Then the chapter concludes with one of those swift, luminous touches, which in the briefest 
space, contains a world of significance. To indicate the natural and unclouded innocence of 
souls, to which as yet evil was unknown, the writer adds that “they were both naked; the man 
and his wife, and were not ashamed.” As Milton writes with that majestic purity which 
enables him to speak as spirits less starry and virginal than his would hardly have dared to do. 

“ Then was not guilty shame. Dishonest shame 
Of nature’s works, honor dishonorable, 

Sin-bred, how have ye troubled all mankind, 

With shews instead, mere shews of seeming pure, 

And banished from man’s life his happiest life — 

Simplicity and spotless innocence ! 

So passed they naked on, nor shunned the sight 
Of God or angel; for they thought no ill.” 3 

But the literal acceptance of this picture-idea of the manner of the creation of woman from 
a rib of man, would be childish. This same remark applies to much of this early narrative. 
“ The expressions of Moses,” says Archbishop Sumner, whose orthodoxy no one will call in 
question, “are evidently adapted to the first familiar notions derived from the sensible appear¬ 
ances of the earth and heavens ; and the absurdity of supposing that the literal interpretation of 
the terms of Scripture ought to interfere with the advancement of philosophical inquiry would 
have been as generally forgotten and renounced if the oppressors of Galileo had not found a 
place in history.” 4 


CHAPTER III. 


(GENESIS III.) 


THE TEMPTATION-THE FALL-THE PENALTY AND THE CURSE-ADAM 
EVE-TIIE EXPULSION FROM PARADISE, AND THE CHERUBIM. 


AND 


”\TTE now enter on the consideration of a chapter which, if we read it solely with a view to 
' ’ understand and profit by the essential lessons which it was meant to teach, is as simple 
as it is profound; but which becomes baffling and inexplicable, if we attempt to push the inter¬ 
pretation of it into minute and irrelevant details. I have long been convinced that intermi¬ 
nable commentaries recording all the vagaries of human fantasy and all the laborious futilities 
of human learning which have been heaped up by wandering exegetes, both Jewish and Chris¬ 
tian, during century after century, are worse than useless. Guesswork, based on idle literalism, 

1 The word for rib (Izela) is in every other passage translated “side” (Vulgate, costa). “This is now bone, etc.” 
“ Now ” means rather *• at last ” (literally, “ this time ”). In some Semitic dialects bone is equivalent to self. 

2 Matthew xix, 5 : “ For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife : and they two 

shall be one flesh.” 3 “ Paradise Lost,” iv, 314-321. 4 Archbishop Sumner, “ Records of Creation,” I, p. 270. 






NARRATIVE OF THE FALL—PRIMAL INNOCENCE. 


Ill 


is alike inconclusive and unsatisfactory. It only tends to divert the mind from spiritual truths. 
In this chapter, as in all the deeper parts of Scripture, the real word of God is “living, and 
active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and 
spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.” 1 

The enormous difficulties which have been discovered, or created, in this chapter arise 
solely from neglecting the spirit of the narrative, and dwelling with unintelligent stolidity on 
every secondary detail of its form. They are difficulties due to the many ages which have 
elapsed since this deeply instructive and divinely profitable allegory of the dawn of sin in the 
human soul was written. They arise also from the vast differences between Eastern literature 
and the mode of thought and expression among those who have been molded under the 
wholly changed forces of modern civilization. Most of the insoluble problems which have 
been so interminably discussed with reference to this narrative of the Fall are such as would not 
have occurred at all to the-ancient writer or to his contemporary readers. There are improba¬ 
bilities, difficulties, etc., which would not have troubled either him or them since they are, as a 
Greek tragedian would have said, irrelevant. They in no wise interfere with the intended 
lessons. 

1 have used the word “ allegory.” Let no reader unaccustomed to the progress of modern 
thought be startled by the word. If he is uninstructed enough to regard it as a matter of faith 
and piety to understand literally the talking serpent, and the trees of Life and of Knowledge, 
there is nothing to prevent him from clinging to a belief which need not necessarily disturb for 
him the spiritual import of the story, but which otherwise has no concern with religion or with 
any truth of vital importance to the soul of man. And if, with the common methods of abuse 
and denunciation, he tries to enforce the same literalism on others of wider learning and stronger 
intelligence, he may be forgiven for a survival of the old tyrannical spirit — ecclesiastical 
dogmatism — which at present will do no harm to anyone but himself. Further, if he considers 
it a profitable or intelligent use of time to discuss with rabbinists and medieval interpreters, 
whether the serpent originally stood erect, whether it had legs, whether — as represented in 
medieval paintings — it had a human head, etc., it is perfectly open for him to do so. All that 
need be said is that, if in any other Eastern book we met with magic trees 2 and talking animals, 
we should not have a moment’s hesitation in separating the symbolic forms from the inward 
meaning, and that even English theologians — who have always been so intensely conservative 
as only to admit new truths long after they have become the merest commonplaces of German 
theology — have, as far back as the days of Bishop Warburton and Bishop Horsley, admitted 
that it is in no sense a matter of faith to give literal acceptance to emblematic teaching. 3 

The Adam and his wife are living in paradise. Their state of innocence consists in ignor¬ 
ance of any commandment but one, and in total inexperience of the consequences which arise 
from that changed relation to God caused by the violation of his behests. It is a type of that 
condition through which all souls pass in the days of childish innocence. “ The holiness of 
children,” says Cardinal Manning, “is the very type of saintliness; and the most perfect 
conversion is but a hard and distant return to the holiness of a child.” Such an absolute 
return is indeed impossible. The perfect innocence of a little child, as yet unconscious of the 
existence of evil, can never be restored; but God who has many tests, and who restores to even 
greater fullness of blessing his returning prodigals, can grant the grander innocence of evil 
known and refused for the untempted innocence which consists in nescience of forbidden 
things. 

1 Hebrews iv, 12 (Revised Version). 

2 Why should the Tree of Life be less a symbol in Genesis than it is in Revelation ii, 7, xxii, 2-14 ? 

3 “The ideas which this language conveys are indeed allegorical, but they inform us of this, and of nothing but this, that 
immortal life was a thing extraneous to our nature.”—Warburton, “ Divine Legation,” vii, 1, 'i 1. Bishop Horsley, “ Sermon 
XVI.” 



112 


ADAM IN PARADISE—SOURCES OF SIN 


How long did Adam and Eve continue in this state of paradisiacal bliss ? The writer 
knows as little on that point as we do. Some conjectured that Adam—or in the wild Rabbinic 
legend of him and his first wife Lilith, by whom he became the father of all the demons — 
continued in Eden for an age. Others make his innocence last only for a moment. The Book 
of Jubilees says that he enjoyed paradise for seven years. A very common view has been that 
his Eden bliss lasted but for a single day. All such conjectures are the idlest of idle talk. 
They did not concern the sacred writer. He is an instructor of the world, sent forth from God 
to illuminate man’s soul, not to gratify his curiosity; to warn him against the peril of tempta¬ 
tion, not to make him an expert in prehistoric history. This object, as we have said, whs to 
answer the perplexing, agitating, most important question — that is, the origin of human sin. 

Whence does sin find entrance into the soul of man ? 

I. It is a question which has occupied the mind of man in every climate and every age. 
It is touched upon in every form of pagan mythology, and in many such mythologies receives 
an answer in some respects analogous to the one here indicated. It may, however, be said 
with the most indisputable truth that no mythological ethopoeia shows anything like the 
marvelous depth, sanity, and simplicity of this narrative of Holy Writ, or is half so well 
calculated for the warning and instruction of the soul. 

i. All alike have seen — all human beings who have attained to years of discretion have 
learnt by experience, more or less sad, more or less fatal — that the sources of sin are twofold. 
These sources are from without and from within; and sin results from the human soul 
succumbing to the union of the two. Whether there is a force, not ourselves, which per se 
makes for unrighteousness, is a question beyond our apprehension, which in any case does not 
concern us, but that there is such a force relatively to ourselves, depending on us for its deadli¬ 
ness, and causing all kinds of moral evil by our cooperation with it, is a matter of universal 
experience. “ The tempting opportunity meets the susceptible disposition.” Saint James gives 
a psychological analysis of temptation which is of intense and searching accuracy, and which 
forms a perfect commentary on the narrative when he says (i, 14, 15), “ Each man is tempted, 
when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust ” (the ‘ evil impulse ’ of 
the Rabbis) “ when it hath conceived, beareth sin ; and the sin, when it is full grown, bringeth 
forth death.” Every child of Adam sins “ after the similitude of Adam’s transgression ” 
(Romans v, 14). 

ii. Externally this force, this principle of evil, is described, symbolized, personified, so to 
speak incarnated, in the language of Scripture as an Evil Being of portentous reality for the 
human race — at once the Tempter, the Accuser ( Diabolos , devil), and the Destroyer — 
Abaddon, Apollyon. He first leads us into sin; then with fiendish malignity charges us with 
the sin ; hastily, unless we cooperate with the Power of salvation for our own rescue, destroys 
us utterly by means of the sin which he has instigated, which is its own punishment, and which 
contains in itself the germs of its own overwhelming retribution. This evil without us is called 
Satan — “ The Satan ” — the Enemy, as though there were no other. 

iii. The power of this external force of evil is indicated by the fact that Satan is called 
by Saint Paul “ The prince of the power of the air,” 1 and even by a very strong expression, 
“ the god of this world.” 2 Our Lord said of him, “ the prince of this world cometh and hath 
nothing in me.” 3 

iv. This foe of mankind is sometimes compared to a lion, sometimes to a serpent; he is 
compared to a wild beast very early in Scripture. God says to Cain (Genesis iv, 7), “And 
if thou doest not well, sin croucheth at the door ” — like a tiger with fell claws and a glare in 
his hungry eye, ready at any unguarded instant to crawl out upon thee from the thicket where 
it lies hid, to trample thee into the mire to rend thee limb from limb. “ Be sober,” says Saint 


Ephesians ii, 2. 


2 II. Corinthians iv, 4. 


3 John xiv, 30, xvi, 11. 



SYMBOLISM OF THE SERPENT—THE TEMPTATION. 


113 


Peter, “ be vigilant because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking 
whom he may devour.” 1 

v. But if the power of outward evil is compared to a lion because of its fearful, sudden, 
lashing spring, it is also compared to a serpent because it glides upon the unwary noiselessly, 
gradually, all but imperceptibly, as through the deciduous leaves of careless movements and 
wandering thoughts. Hence, too, the devil is called “ that Old Serpent.” 2 and we are warned 
lest we should be led astray by him, as the serpent seduced Eve. 3 

vi. Evil, then, either springs upon the human soul with sudden and overmastering 
violence or is suffered to slide into it by slow degrees. But of the two symbols that of the 
serpent was, on every ground and obviously, the best suited to convey the sacred teaching here. 
Fatal temptation cannot spring upon the innocent, “terrible and with a tiger’s leap,” until 
innocence has become incipient guilt. The wild beasts roar after their prey in thickets, where 
the serpent has already made its home. 

vii. If we look still more closely at the emblem we see that it stands for that which occurs 
so incessantly in the later Jewish writings as the Yetzer ha-ra, or evil impulse. It symbolizes 
that lust of the flesh, called in Greek “ the mind of the flesh,” “ which some do expound the 
wisdom, some sensuality, some the affections, some the desire of the flesh”: 4 A nature which 
has once suffered itself to be infected by this corruption “ is not subject to the law of God.” It 
sinks into a state which Saint Paul describes as carnalism, as “ the law in my members, warring 
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my 
members.” 5 

viii. The serpent is described as “ more subtle than any beast of the field.” This creature 
has always been regarded by the families of man as something uncanny alike in its loathliness, 
its fascination, and in the swift deathfulness of its attack and spring. It fascinates with full, 
round, glittering eye; it approaches noiseless and unseen ; it crushes with its voluminous folds ; 
it can glide over every fence and barrier, into every corner and recess. “ It lies apparently dead 
for months, yet when roused it can outclimb the monkey, outswim the fish, outleap the zebra, 
outwrestle the athlete, and crush the tiger.” 6 The embodiment of temptation in the form of a 
serpent indicates the insidious power of inward evil. The writer introduces it with fearful 
suddenness, without giving a moment’s thought to its shape, or position, or to any surprise which 
Eve might have been supposed to feel at hearing it emit human utterance. It never occurred to 
him to make Eve ask 

“How cam’st thou speakable of mute?” 

All this was entirely alien from his purpose. He is dealing with a symbol, which merely as a 
symbol is nothing to him; the serpent to him means the voice of revolt and seduction in the 
heart of man. Talking animals are universal in all the allegories of the world. 

II. The serpent said to the woman, “Yea, hath God said . . . ?” This is an admirably 
idiomatic rendering of the abrupt aphki f And it is significant that the serpent only uses the 
more general name Eloliim as though the sacred Tetragrammaton, the name of Yahveh the 
covenant God, be too “ sacred and significant ” to be put into those polluted lips. 

i. How marvelous is the divine insight into the nature of sin, which is here displayed! 
There is nothing really sudden in the approach of the serpent. Its voice is only the voice of a 
doubt, already admitted into the soul of Eve, already tampered with by her wandering thought. 
It is the dawn of self-will; the first slight arrow-wound launched at that unquestioning obedi¬ 
ence which rises from perfect faith in God — it is self-persuasion in the direction of desire. 
The serpent ought to have been hateful to Eve. “The burning color of the serpent; the 

1 1. Peter v, 8; compare Luke viii, 29, ix, 39-42. 2 Proverbs xxiii, 32; Isaiah xxvii, 1; Revelation xii, 9-15, xx, 2. 

3 As far back as Eusebius “ the serpent ” is regarded as a metaphor. 

4 Ninth Article of the Church of England. See I. Peter ii, 11; II. Peter i, 4, ii, 10; James i, 14, 15; Romans vii, 7; 

Galatians v, 16, etc. 5 Romans vii, 23. 6 Dr. Marcus Dodds, “ Genesis,” p. 20. 



114 


DEVELOPMENT OF EVIL IN THE SOUL. 


cloven, vibrating tongue; the poison swollen teeth; the horrid hissing; the stealthy and 
tortuous but dart-like motions; the irascible temper; the contemptible craft”—all these would 
naturally make the creature an object of horror and disgust; but already for Eve the first stage 
of temptation is so far past that she has evidently permitted herself to feel “ the bewitching 
power of the ever-watchful eyes.” There is in her none of the start and shrinking back of 
innocence at the first touch of assoilment. The serpent does but articulate the voice of her own 
already inborn doubt. “ Our great security against sin lies in being shocked at it. Eve gazed 
and reflected, when she should have fled.” 

ii. Verses 2 and 3. And although in words she repudiates the doubt, yet there is an 
accent of self-betraying exaggeration in the phrases she adopts. They might eat of the trees of 
the garden but—“ alas” ! she seems to sigh — there was one tree, and that in the very midst of 
the garden as though from its choiceness of preeminence, of which God had said, that they 
must not eat, neither must they touch it, lest they should die. God had not said that they were 
“ not to touch it,” and it is possible that the writer meant to imply a little impulse of rebellion 
in the over-emphasis with which the prohibition was repeated. Moreover, there was another 
tree in the midst of the garden, of which they had not been forbidden to eat, the Tree of Life; 
and she does not mention the name of the forbidden tree “ of the knowledge of good and evil,” 
because the very name would have sufficed to show that the object of the restriction was pure 
compassion. Perhaps, then, even already, the Yahvist means to shadow forth the lurking 
sophistry of sin, a certain selfishness of will, and infatuation of desire, and darkening of intellect. 
Eve felt already a certain possibility of and even indefinite attractiveness in independence and 
disobedience. “ The history of the first sin,” says Kalisch, “ describes the nature of all human 
failings in every succeeding age. The simple narrative embodies truths which neither 
philosophy nor experience have been able to modify or to enlarge.” 

iii. The writer left much to human imagination and thought; otherwise he might have 
pointed out how infinitely wiser it would have been for Eve to keep away from the vicinage of 
temptation. If the fruit was forbidden, it was the worst of follies to linger in the scene of moral 
danger. We are all of us lingering near the fatal tree when we give willing harborage and 
hospitality to evil thoughts, and one of the lessons of this chapter is: Guard well thy thoughts, 
for thoughts are heard in Heaven. All wickedness of every kind begins, and only can begin, in 
evil thoughts. Then the evil thought becomes the evil wish; the evil wish the evil purpose; 
the evil purpose the evil act; the evil act the evil repetition — for, as Saint Augustine asks, 
“ Whom sawest thou ever content with a single sin? ” Then the evil act and the evil repetition 
disorder all the delicate moral adjustments of the soul, until the evil repetition has become the 
evil habit; the evil habit the evil character, and the evil character the evil destiny. “ Sin,” 
says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, “ first startles a man; then it becomes pleasing; then it becomes 
easy ; then delightful; then frequent; then habitual; then confirmed; then the man is impeni¬ 
tent, then obstinate, then resolves never to repent, and then is damned.” 

THE FALL (VERSES 4 TO 6). 

Verses 4 and 5. But now the doubt or dislike of the prohibition, having been suffered 
secretly to enter the mind, is most fiercely emphasized into absolute disbelief and repudiation. 
The serpent voice, which is the voice of concupiscence within her, gives the lie to God, and 
says, “Ye shall not surely die; nay more, the prohibition is unjust, is tyrranous. It rises from 
God’s envy at the possible attainment by man of an immense elevation. He knew that when 
they ate of the fruit their eyes should be opened; they would be no more like unintelligent 
driven animals; they would become as God, knowing good and evil.” 

Verse 6. The results of the admitted doubt, of the secret rebellion, follow with immense 
and frightful rapidity. Now the woman gazes at the forbidden tree; persuades herself that its 


TEMPTATION AND ASSENT — FRUITS OF SIN. 


115 


fruit is good for food, and that it is pleasant to the eyes -and a tree desirable for gaining insight. 
She tampers, she dallies with, she revels in the evil thought. Unwise curiosity becomes guilty 
curiosity, and guilty curiosity soon leaps full-grown into guilty assentation. Self-will is the 
high road to doubt of God’s goodness; and that to rebellion, and that to ruin. 

She took of the fruit — even then at that eleventh hour it might not have been too late 
to draw back, to leap away as it were from the edge of the precipice. But when the soul has 
gone so far in the path of guilt — when the senses and the self-will have conspired together for 
the betrayal — how rarely does it stop before the final consummation! There was no guilt in 
the existence of temptation ; no guilt in the temperament which rendered it possible: the guilt 
began when the will began to side with the impulse and instigation against the reason and the 
conscience. “ It is the devil’s part to suggest,” says Saint Bernard. “It is ours not to consent: 
As often as we overcome him so we bring glory to God .... who opposeth us that we 
may contend, and assisteth us that we may conquer.” 

“ She ate.” The evil curiosity developed with terrible precipitance into the daringly open 
transgression ; and since no lightning flashed, no overwhelming ruin burst instantly upon the 
head of crime — since, on the contrary, the tasting of the forbidden fruit brought at once its 
own voluptuous gratification, 

“Greedily she engorged without restraint, 

And knew not eating death.” 

And so the mother of mankind, by her fatal inabstinence, 

‘ ‘ Brought death into the world and all our woe. ” 

And, alas, it does not stop there! The tempted instantly becomes in her turn the tempter. 
Those who have yielded to the devil become not only his personal bondslaves, but too often his 
active agents and emissaries. Sin is a frightfully pervasive and diffusive element in the heart 
itself; it multiplies itself with infinite reverberations in the world without. By committing a 
conscious act of sin — by first willingly taking sin by the hand — the soul joins the great host of 
rebels against God, and recommits the crime of our first parents. But a lonely participation in 
the abysmal mystery of rebellion terrifies the soul. It cannot bear isolation in evil. The first 
intoxicating result of tasting the fruit of sin is the desire to share with others the maddening 
empoisonment; so “ the woman gave also to her husband with her ; and he did eat.” Of what 
kind the tree was is a question which it never troubled the sacred writer to inquire. Tradition 
has generally been content, as were the Latin Fathers and Milton, with the notion of 

“That crude apple which perverted Eve”; 

but the Rabbis thought that the tree was a vine or an olive; and the Greeks imagined that it 
was a fig. It was none of these; it was a pure symbol on the page of a writer who did not 
expect that his readers would wander from his high and solemn purpose into the inquiries of a 
literalism which would be perfectly futile. 

The consequences. (Genesis iii, 7-20.) 

Shame, verse 7. And now that they had sinned “ their eyes were opened,” and fatally 
opened. The first result of sin in the soul not wholly lost is the penal agony of shame — the 
rankling tooth of remorse. They were ashamed of one another and of themselves: “ they 
knew that they were naked.” 

Their previous happy condition of unconscious simplicity is succeeded by one of anxiety 
(ii, 25). The native hue of innocence is exchanged for the burning and painful blush of self- 
reproach and self-disgust. 

That shame was too intolerable to bear. To shield themselves in part from it at least by 
some poor resource, they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves girdles to hide the 
10 


116 


ALIENATION FROM GOD. 


nakedness wliicli now only shocked and pained them. And from this it is evident that, though 
it may be an error to press the signification into details, the thought of some form of sensual 
sin is prominent, if not exclusive, in the sacred narrative. And since no undying worm and 
quenchless flame can cause fiercer pangs than those which the shame of the self-conscious sinner 
burns into himself, sin becomes, sooner or later — and far more often soon than late — its own 
inevitable punishment. Every sinner, however wildly he may try to escape his doom, becomes 
his own most certain self-tormentor and self-avenger. He sees virtue and goodness in their own 
native loveliness and pines away at their loss. He is his own hell, and himself arms all that is 
best within him with the snaky torch and serpent tresses of the fury avenger. These results 
also are clearly indicated in the ensuing verses. 

Alienation from God. (Genesis iii, 8 to 11.) 

This second consequence of disobedience, so certain and so full of anguish, is indicated in a 
most simple yet vivid manner, such as could not be surpassed. Hitherto the Adam had lived 
in familiar intercourse with God. 

“Upon the breast of new-created earth 
Man walked ; and when and wheresoe’er he moved, 

Alone or mated, solitude was not. 

He heard, borne on the wind, the articulate voice 
Of God ; and angels to his sight appeared, 

Crowning the glorious hills of paradise ; 

Or through the groves, gliding like morning mist 
Enkindled by the sun. He sat — and talked 
With winged messengers ; who daily brought 
To his small island in the ethereal deep 
Tidings of joy and love.” 1 

At first a loving son exulted in his father’s presence; now a stained, self-conscious, guilty 
wretch shrank from it. The presence of the pure does but pain the unclean, as light gives 
anguish to aching eyes. 

The Lord God walked in the Garden in the cool wind of the day, and man heard his 
sounding footstep. 2 Man came forth no more to meet him. Adam and his wife hid themselves 
— oh, how vainly — amid the trees of the Garden. 

But the soul, however much it tries, can never hide itself from God. It finds God a 
besetting God. It cannot find a spot unvisited, unhaunted by his omnipresence. “ Whither 
shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into 
heaven, thou art there. If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there. If I take the 
wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand 
lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.” 

Adam instantly trembled to hear the terrible, penetrating, still, small summons of God; 
his sounding footstep in the Garden ; his heart-shaking question, “Adam, where art thou?” 

With that imperfect girdle of fig leaves about him — never before needed — which 
betrayed his sin and shame, he came forth and confessed his concealment, his fear, his conscious¬ 
ness of nakedness. And God’s voice, which was the voice of his own conscience within him, 
asked, “Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the forbidden tree?” 

Guilt is always weakness, and meanness, and uneasy cowardice, and the fertility of poor 
excuse. Adam is not content humbly to confess, and to throw himself on the mercy of God. 
He would fain screen himself and throw the blame on others — even, in part, on God himself. 3 
“ The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” 

1 Wordsworth, “The Excursion,” Book IV. - K61, “sound,” as in II. Samuel v, 24 ; I. Kings xix, 12; Spurrell. 

3 James i, 13 (Revised Version). “ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be 
tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man.” 



MORAL RESPONSIBILITY — TIIE SERPENT CURSED. 


117 


Now God turns to the shrinking woman with the awful question — the more awful from its 
very simplicity — “ What is this that thou hast done?” How tremendous beyond all power 
of imagination would have been the true and full answer to that question, if Eve could but have 
foreseen all that her sin involved ! 

And the woman can but throw the blame on the source of the temptation: “ The Serpent 
beguiled me, and I did eat.” 

But human beings cannot find any valid excuse for their misdeeds by attempting to shift 
the responsibility of them upon the external sources of evil. Any outward temptation does not 
become sin at all, until it has been treacherously admitted and voluntarily welcomed into the 
heart. “The soul,” as an old divine has said, “may not make a pack-saddle of the devil for its 
own sins.” As far as man is concerned the serpent is harmless enough, until man has unbarred 
the temple gate, and suffered it to glide into the sanctuary. It is there only that its subtle 
venom begins to permeate every vein and fiber of the moral life. And thus, as God had said 
to Adam and Eve, the wages of sin was death — that spiritual death which was a far more real 
death than what sweet St. Francis of Assisi called “our sister, the death of the body.” Sin is 
death ; for it is “ an attempt to control the immutable and unalterable laws of everlasting right¬ 
eousness, goodness, and truth on which the universe depends.” “ The wages that sin bargains 
with the sinner for,” says South, “ are life, pleasure, and profit: but the wages it pays him with 
are death, torment, and destruction : he that would understand the falsehood and deceit of sin 
thoroughly, must compare its promises and its payment together.” The experience of our first 
parents did but anticipate the experience of the universal world in all subsequent generations 
— that “ unlawful pleasure is envenomed pleasure; its fruition is disappointing at the time, its 
consequences cruelly torture afterward, its effects deprave forever.” 

The Cm 'se of the Serpent. (Verses 14 and 15.) 

In these verses, in which the allegory and fact are somewhat perplexingly commingled, 
there seems to he an interfusion of the symbol and the thing signified—the serpent and the power 
of evil which stood behind it, and of which it was the emblem and the instrument. That the 
serpent is here a symbol of the Evil One none have doubted. We find this clearly stated in the 
New Testament. Thus in John viii, 44, our Lord says that the devil was “a liar” and “a 
murderer from the beginning,” and we read of “ that old serpent called the devil,” in Revela¬ 
tion xii, 9, xx, 2. But the identification was made long before the era of the New Covenant. 
Even the ancient Samaritan text of the Pentateuch here renders “ serpent ” by “ liar.” And in 
the Book of Wisdom we read “ For God has created man for unperishable existence, and made 
him after the image of his own being. But by the envy of Satan death came into the world; 
and it befalls all those who belong to him.” 1 

On the serpent, then, is pronounced a fourfold curse, which is perhaps based on the imag¬ 
inative aspect of the creature’s actual lot. It is to be (1) cursed among all cattle, and every 
beast of the field — a thing set apart, as it were, to be shunned and hated; (2) it is to crawl on 
its belly as a perpetual degradation; (3) it is to eat dust, because, from its method of salivation 
and deglutition, dust must be largely mingled with its food. “Dust,” says Isaiah, “shall be 
the serpent’s meat.” (4) There was to be perpetual enmity between it and man. It might 
“crush ” or wound man’s heel, but man — always regarding it with fear and horror, even when 
these feelings are disguised, as among the Egyptians, and Hindoos, and North American 
Indians, under forms of superstitious reverence — should, on every possible occasion, bruise 
its head. 

These curses may be, as regards the mere reptile, a play of imagination, since, like all the 
rest of God’s creatures, serpents do but fulfill the inevitable law of their being. To this day, 
for instance in Hindostan, man crushes the heads of countless serpents, and more Hindoos die 


1 Wisdom ii, 23-24; Micah vii, 17; Isaiah lxv, 25. 



118 


THE CURSE INTERPRETED —VARIATION IN PENALTY. 


every year from snake bite, especially in the heel, than from any other accident. Probably, 
too, some very ancient tradition on this subject survived among different races, for to this day 
the pictures of Vishnu as Krishna, the young Hindoo god of deliverance, trampling victoriously 
on the serpent which he has destroyed, might serve as a pictorial illustration of the same idea 
which is in the mind of the Yahvist. 1 It would, of course, be absurd to suppose that every 
serpent, of every species and variety — numbered by hundreds—lives in a state of conscious 
degradation and anguish because the Power of Evil used the agency of their distant progenitor 
for the first temptation. We must, therefore, look through the symbolism to deeper truths. 
The curse on the serpent represents the inherent shamefulness which attaches itself like a law 
to all corrupt and evil natures. Of every drunkard, and sensualist, and murderer, and thief, 
and liar, and mammon worshiper, it remains true that “ on thy belly shalt thou go, and dust 
shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” 

In the words, “Thou shalt bruise his heel,” and he “shall bruise thy head,” many Fathers 
and Christian commentators, and some later Jewish writers have seen a Messianic interpretation 
apart from the more general one. And this view is distinctly sanctioned by Saint Paul, and 
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who alludes to the curse of the serpent in speaking 
of Christ as “The seed of the woman,” sent forth by God “to destroy, by his death, him 
that hath power of death, that is, the devil ” (Galatians iii, 16; Hebrews ii, 14). Saint 
Paul says, “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet” (Romans xvi, 20). It is 
perfectly legitimate to read this interpretation into the old deep symbol and prophecy, without 
assuming that it was consciously in the mind of the writer. For the completion of its work 
involved the potency of the final annihilation of all evil; the destruction of every venomous 
force of sin was declared in this last great cry upon the cross, “ It is finished.” The curse- 
alleviating promise of Eden did not receive its full illustration until the “Son of God was 
manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil.” 

The Doom of the Woman. (Verse 16.) 

“ Unto the woman he said.” On this expression Tertullian makes the striking comment, 
“ God shows that, for the present, he extended Adam’s life. Therefore, he did not curse Adam 
himself and Eve, as having been unveiled by confession, as candidates for restitution.” 2 

Woman, as the author of the calamity, is to taste of its bitter fruit in herself, and in all 
her daughters, who sin after the similitude of her transgression; God pronounced upon her the 
doom of pain, perilous childbirth, 3 of desire for and subjection to! her husband, so that in the 
very fulfillment of the highest and sweetest ideals of her life — in love and motherhood — was 
attached the condition of physical and often also of mental anguish. This doom was, however, 
greatly alleviated by the coming of Christ. Yet throughout the East, and in many ages and 

climes, the lot of woman, under this inherent curse involved in the primeval Fall, has been one 

of drudgery and degradation, and even in many nominally Christian countries it is so still. 

The Doom of Man. (Verses 17 to 19.) 

“ And unto Adam he said.” It is noticeable that Adam here first occurs as a proper 
noun — Adam, not the Adam. The man also must bear bis retribution. His excuse which he 
shifted upon his wife was not valid. Man may be tempted to sin, but 

’Tis one thing to be tempted, another thing “to fall.” 

Every man is solely responsible for his own transgression and “ the soul that sinneth it shall 
die.” Therefore, to punish man’s offense: i. The ground is cursed, and shall bring forth 

thorns and thistles, ii. He should eat the produce of it, but only as the result of toil, and 

1 It should, however, be noticed that the history of Krishna in the “Bhagavad-gitd,” may have been influenced by 
Jewish or Christian elements, as the Koran w r as afterward. 

2 Tertullian, “Adverms Marcionem,” ii, 25. 

3 “Multiplying, I w r ill multiply thy pain and thy conception.” 



HUMAN SUFFERING—EDENIC MONOGAMY—MAN CLOTHED. 


119 


labor, and the sweat of his brow. iii. And thus his life would be a life of pain, for he was 
not a god, and had not become as Elohim by his sin ; dust he was and unto dust should he 
return. The reality of the curse has been acknowledged by all mankind. 

“ Although affliction cometli not forth of the dust,” says Job, “ neither doth trouble spring 
out of the ground; yet man is born to trouble, as the sparks fly upward 1 and he asks, “ Are 
not his days like the days of a hireling?” 2 “God distributeth sorrows in his anger.” 3 “All 
his [man’s] days are sorrows,” says the preacher, “and his travail grief.” 4 

“All the life of man is painful,” says Euripides, “and there is no cessation from his 
toils.” 5 The sage promised the unhappy Persian king that he would recall his dead queen to 
life, if he could find the names of but three happy men to inscribe upon her tomb: and he 
searched through all his realm, but they were not to be found.” 

The Psalmist sums up the peevish April day of our little life thus: “ The days of our age 
are threescore years and ten; and though men be so strong that they come to fourscore years, 
yet is their strength then but labor and sorrow; so soon passeth it away, and we are gone.” 

Man and Woman. (Verse 20.) 

Hitherto the Adam has called the name of woman ishshah; but now God had spoken of 
her conception and motherhood and he calls her name chavvah “ Life ” or “ Living,” because she 
is to be the mother of all living. The curse of participated guilt is in part ameliorated, through 
God’s tenderness, by the blessing of closer union; and the beautiful sanctity of married love, 
with all the sweetness of family life, renders all sorrows more endurable, all joys more intense. 

Against the deadly evil of polygamy, so universal in Eastern lands, Christ appealed to the 
primeval monogamy of Eden, to prove that “in the beginning it was not so,” though plurality 
of wives had been permitted in the Mosaic dispensation because of the hardness of men’s hearts. 
He restored the beauty of the ideal of paradise to its pristine brightness, and whenever religion 
has remained unsophisticated by the priestly and Manichean elements of voluntary will worship 
and unnatural asceticism, “ forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,” then 
men have reverenced that holy estate which was instituted in the time of man’s innocency, and 
which Christ adorned and beautified with his Presence and first miracle which he wrought in 
Cana of Galilee. 

The end of the Sin. 

God who always tempers judgment with mercy, and whose compassion ever prevails over 
his justice, alleviates in many ways the punishment which the sinful parents of our race had 
brought upon themselves. Vainly had they attempted to hide the shame of their nakedness ; 
but God made them coats of skins. 6 “ The Law begins and ends with an act of loving kind¬ 
ness,” said Rav Simlaee. “At its commencement God clothes the naked : at its close he buries 
the dead.” (Soteh, 14a.) To ask where the skins came from, is to go behind the writer’s 
purpose. It might be sufficient to say that, as geology has overwhelmingly proved, death has 
existed in the animal world since the earliest dawn of time, and the first pair might have been 
clad in the skin of dead animals. It is equally easy to interpolate a supposed institution of 
animal sacrifice and to say that these were the skins of animals slain in propitiation of God’s 
wrath. But such conjectures are either futile or unwarrantable. Scripture nowhere tells us of 
any divine institution of sacrifice as an ordinance of worship before the Mosaic legislation. 
Equally easy is it, and even more futile, to follow some of the Rabbis and Fathers in inter¬ 
preting the “tunics of skin” as Adam’s own skin, his fleshy garment and tabernacle; and to 
assume that, up to this time, his body had been a body of light like that of the angels. These 
are the inexcusable aberrations of a fantastic exegesis, which has done much to render turbid 
with alien influences of human folly the pure and simple \Y ord of God. 

1 Job v, 7. 2 Job vii, 1. 3 Job xxi, 17. 4 Ecclesiastes ii, 23. 5 Hippolytus, 189. 

6 Genesis iii, 21. “ Coats,” Hebrew, Kotnoth (compare “ cotton ”). 



120 


HUMAN INTELLECT BROADENED—THE CHERUBIM. 


In the next verse (verse 22) it is admitted that, infinite as had been the loss involved for 
man in the forfeiture of his innocence, yet, on the other hand, in some respects, his intellectual 
horizon had been broadened: he had attained a fuller self-consciousness, and made a disastrous 
progress. “ The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Now, therefore, he must 
be suffered no longer to eat of the tree of life. The possibility of earthly immortality is 
forfeited. He is sent forth from Eden to till the common earth ; and “ Eastward ” of the 
Garden, that all access to it might be barred to him thenceforth forever, are placed Cherubim 
and a fiery sword that turned every way to guard the way of the tree of life. 

It is a curious circumstance that the Cherubim are here abruptly introduced without the 
slightest explanation or indication as to what they were. We may form some opinion about 
them from (i) the etymology of the word, and (ii) from various ethnic analogies; but (iii) 
mainly from the references to them in Scripture. 

i. The etymology is wholly uncertain. The word may be connected (1) with kerabh, “he 
ploughed”; or (2) a transposition of rekoohh, “chariot” (I. Chronicles xxviii, 18); or (3) 
q’roubh, “he who is near God”; or (4) from Arab roots meaning “strong” or “noble”; or (5) 
the Assyrian karabu, “ to be powerful.” 1 

ii. The ethnic analogies are numerous. There is the winged saraph of the Egyptians, 
seen on their sacred arks; and winged figures of lions, and bulls with human faces, or of men 
with eagle heads in Assyrian and Babylonian remains. 

iii. The Cherubim are here alone mentioned in Genesis, and are introduced as angelic 
beings who defend the tree of life. We next meet with them in Exodus xxv, 18, xxxvii, 7, 
where they form the throne of the Shekinah over the Ark which enshrines the broken tablets 
of the moral law. There they are guardians of his presence for the expiation of sin, and 
guardians of the divine oracles. “In the vision of Ezekiel” known as “the chariot” (Ezekiel 
i, 4-28), and in the Apocalypse (iv, 0-11) we have variations between one single tetramorphic 
being and thg “ fourfold visaged four.” Though in symbolic completeness they are composed 
of four separate or united forms of life, yet they might be represented by any one of the four 
elements, especially by winged oxen or winged men. 

They clearly symbolize divine existence in immediate contact with the Eternal: “ As 
standing on the highest step of created life, and uniting in themselves the most perfect created 
life, they are the most perfect emblem of God and the divine life.” 2 Their office was twofold: 
(1) They exercised a protective-vengeful function in guarding from man’s too-close intrusion 
the physical and moral splendors of a lost paradise, and a sacred revelation; and (2) they form 
the chariot throne of God, and defend the outskirts of his unapproachable glory. But, in their 
connection with the mercy seat, they are types, not only of vengeance, but of expiation and 
forgiveness. And in the vision of Saint John these immortalities appear in the same choir, the 
redeemed innumerable multitude of the Universal Church, mingling with the choir and joining 
in the new song. Thus we see that the apparent wrath which excluded man from the forfeited 
paradise was but the mercy in disguise which secured for him its final fruition in nobler forms 
of life. The four in their union were also fancifully regarded as a type of Christ. 

No more suggestive commentary on the whole narrative of the Fall can be offered than 
that of the Apostle of the Gentiles: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a 
living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is 
spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of 
the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they 
also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we 
have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” 3 


‘See my article on Cherubim in Kitto’s “Encyclopaedia”; Cheyne in “Encyclopaedia Britannica”; Spurred, ad locum. 
“Baelir, “Symbolik,” i, 340. 3 1. Corinthians xv, 45-49. 



CHAPTER IV. 

(GENESIS IV.) 


THE SPREAD OF SIN AND THE FIRST MURDER. 

(VERSES 1 TO 15.) 

rpHE story of man’s fall continues to acquire a more and more tragic intensity, and, while the 
J- story of humanity tells us of splendid progress in all the arts of life, it tells us also of 
the brutal passions which have flung their sanguinary stains over the annals of advancing 
civilization. 

There has been an attempt, in the legends of all nations, to evoke the shadows out of an 
unknown past. In all attempts to imagine and reproduce the story of prehistoric aeons the 
conjectures of thinkers as to the first beginnings of civilization and of crime have been thrown 
into allegoric forms. But the sacred writer does not lose himself in the accumulated details of 
other ancient cosmogonies. He leaves unsolved many of the stubborn questionings of curiosity. 
He suffers his narrative to be beset with countless difficulties as to all the points which do not 
bear on his main design. He is too much absorbed in his ethical and spiritual purpose to pay 
the smallest heed to matters which did not bear upon it. He unswervingly pursues the end 
which he has solely in view—namely, the revelation to men of truths of infinite concernment 
to their spiritual instruction. 

From the expression: “And Adam knew his wife Eve,” which is here first introduced 
after the fall, many have conjectured that but for the fall there would never have been this 
union of the sexes, but that mankind would have been reproduced in other ways. There is not 
the least justification for such an opinion. It is a point on which the sacred writers do not 
touch ; and, so far as the mere phrase is concerned, it does not involve the inference that this 
was the beginning of marital intercourse. 1 To the Jews the mysteries of marriage and of birth 
were regarded as having been primevally sanctified, in accordance with the earliest decree of 
God. They would not have sanctioned the false notion of a presumptuous asceticism that they 
involved any dishonor or any stain. 

So Eve brought forth her firstborn son, and in the rapturous joy of motherhood called him 
Cain ( Qain) for, she said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” 2 It is indeed certain that 
Qain cannot be derived from qanah, “to acquire”; but the connection of the two words is not 
that of direct affinity, but of mysterious assonance. We have already seen that the Jews 
attributed mysterious meanings to the sound — so to speak, the physiological quality — of 
words. To them they were something more than mere breaths of articulated air. The writer 
must have been well aware that Qain has no direct affinity with qanali, but is connected with 
qyn “to forge”; and that the most obvious meaning of the name Cain is not “ acquisition ,” but 
“a spear.” 3 The Jews were, indeed, fond of connecting the names of men with some prominent 
event in their lives, as in the cases of Saul and Samuel; and names were often given at birth, or 
altered in subsequent life, with significant allusion to an important circumstance in the career or 
character. In some of these instances, however, the name was only a suggestive resemblance. 
Thus Moses cannot be derived from mashah, “ to draw out .” 4 But in these early chapters of 
Genesis we are obviously dealing rather with general and allegorical appellatives than with 
specific designations. We see thus, for instance, in the name of Eve’s second son, Abel, which 

1 In proof of this see I. Samuel i, 19. 2 The Hebrew is eth Yahveh. 

3 II. Samuel xxi, 16. Also the name of the Kenites, Numbers xxiv, 22; Judges iv, 11. A similar word in Arabic means 

“ a smith.” 4 Exodus ii, 10. See Josephus, ‘ Antiquities,” II, 9, 6. 


121 



122 


THE OFFERINGS OF CAIN AND ABEL. 


is not connected as Josephus thought with iebel, “ grief,” but with hebel, “frailty” or “ nothing¬ 
ness,” with obvious reference to the shortness of his life. 

The two men first born into the world, naturally betook themselves to the two most neces¬ 
sary and elementary modes of supporting life — the agricultural and the pastoral. Abel was a 
keeper of sheep; Cain was a tiller of the ground. These were the almost exclusive pursuits of 
the ancient Israelites. 

The next immense step in human development was the dawn of that religious feeling 
which, in almost every primitive nation, has expressed itself by the offering of sacrifice. It is a 
fact deeply significant of the sobriety and wholesomeness of this vivid narrative that there is 
no reference to any divine injunction of the ordinances of sacrifice. Nor, again, is there the 
least hint that the sacrifices of Cain and Abel had any propitiatory significance. In savage 
nations, self-torture and the immolation not only of animal but even of human victims, to 
appease the jealous fury of demon-deities, have been common. 

The natural mind of fallen man, stained with guilt and terrified by conscience, felt instinc¬ 
tively driven to the question which the Prophet Micah puts into the mouth of the Mesopo¬ 
tamian sorcerer: “ Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the 
sin of my soul ? ” This was the error which Samuel had to correct in the crude and impulsive 
mind of Saul — “ Hath the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying 
the voice of the Lord ? Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat 
of rams.” It was the lesson of the Prophet Hosea which won the favorite quotation of our 
Lord, “ Behold, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.” It required a special revelation to teach 
man the solemn and beautiful truth, “ He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what 
doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy 
God.” The writer gives no indication that he shared the manifold aberration of the old 
religions. The sacrifices of which he speaks are simple expressions of thanks and of praise. 
He does not even hint that they were placed on any altar. No altar is so much as mentioned 
till the days of Noah, after the flood. 

In course of time Cain brought to God an offering. The word used is minchah. It was 
the sign of instinctive gratitude to the Giver of all good gifts, and it was not a zebach or olah, 
i. e., a bloody sacrifice, but consisted of the fruits of the ground which had been yielded as 
increase in reward for his toil. Abel, since he was a shepherd, no less naturally brought “ fat 
pieces ” of the first fruits of his flock. 

It might have seemed to human eyes that there was no difference between the brothers; 
that, in the absence of any divine injunction, each had acted rightfully and dutifully in bring¬ 
ing the offering which was most natural to him, and which expressed his thanksgiving for 
God’s blessing upon his labors. But the Lord readeth the very thoughts of the heart, and 
“ Yahveh had regard for Abel and for his offering, but for Cain and for his offering he had 
no regard.” 

Two questions arise which have been freely answered by exegetes from the earliest days, 
but to which the sacred narrative furnishes no answer at all. 

i. “ How did God show that he approved and accepted the offering of Abel, but did not 
approve that of Cain ? ” 

The writer did not trouble himself with such questions. He was content to express the 
essential fact. Any conjecture must, from the nature of the case, be idle. Theodotion renders 
the word “ had respect for ” by the Greek word that means “ kindled by fire,” and that God’s 
approval of Abel was shown by the descent of fire from heaven upon his offering, 1 has been 
the view of many commentators both Jewish and Christian, from the days of Saint Jerome 
down to those of Delitzsch. Yet there is no hint of any such miracle, and God’s approval 


As in Leviticus ix, 24; Judges vi, 21; I. Kings xviii, 38 ; I. Chronicles xxi, 26. 



ACCEPTABILITY OF SACRIFICE. 


123 


might have been known by the -same subjective intimation in which he subsequently made 
known to Cain his warning, and the doom which must ever dog the heels of crime. 

ii. Much more important is the question, “ Why did Jehovah respect Abel’s gift, while 
he rejected Cain’s?” Again the brief, solemn record is silent, because the special reason had 
no significance apart from the general one, that God looks not at the gift, but at the heart of 
the giver. 

a. The reasons suggested by the Fathers and some later writers are untenable. There is, 
for instance, no hint that God accepted animal sacrifices, and despised the offering of fruits. 
The wiser heathen themselves would have rejected any such notion. The difference lay in 
the giver, not in the gift. Even the gay lyric poet assures the rustic that the gift of the inno¬ 
cent is always acceptable to heaven. Euripides says that “ a wicked hand could not even touch 
the gods.” 1 The Rabbis were no less emphatic in asserting this truth, and referred to Psalm 
li, 17. Rabbi Eleazar said: “Greater is he that doeth righteousness than all the sacrifices.” 

b. Nor, again, is any emphasis to be laid on the fact that Abel brought of the firstlings of 
his flock and of their fat, as though it were meant — so the Talmudists suggest — that Cain’s 
gift was careless and perfunctory, and he himself like a faithless steward who only offers to his 
master what is second-best. Had such been the intention of the story, it is clear that it would 
have been more definitely expressed, and I cannot think that it is proved by the Greek word 
of Hebrews xi, 4, which, literally rendered, would be a “more abundant” sacrifice; for the 
writer of the epistle may have borrowed the notion from Philo, as he also does the expression 
that Abel, though dead, still lives. 

c. Still more arbitrary and less warrantable is the view of Hofmann, that Cain deliberately 
overlooked the connection of sacrifice with sin, as though he were already acquainted with the 
truth that, in the Levitic law, “Without shedding of hlood there is no remission”' — an infer¬ 
ence accompanied with the very idle suggestion that because the ground had been “ cursed,” 
therefore the fruits of the earth were an accursed offering. 

d. The essential difference between Cain’s gift and that of Abel had been already indicated 

by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. “ By faith,” he says, “Abel offered unto God a 

more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which [sacrifice] he had witness borne to him that 
he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect to his gift; and through it [faith] he being 
dead yet speaketh.” (Revised Version.) 

e. And this lesson is distinctly indicated in the subsequent narrative, which, without 

further specification, intimates that what was lacking in Cain was perfect love and purity of 

heart. The absence of this love and purity of heart instantly betrayed itself in the conse¬ 

quences. Seeing that Abel was more approved than himself, “ it was hot to Cain ” — i. e„ his 
anger and jealousy burned like fire, and his countenance fell. The existence of this bad and 
fierce passion gave occasion to a merciful warning from God. Speaking to his heart, and 
conveying to him the lesson, that the worst way of receiving a mark of God’s disapproval is to 
vent spite on our brother-man, because of it, the Lord said to Cain, “ Why art thou angry, and 
why is thy countenance fallen?” The appeal was very gentle and merciful, because Cain had 
followed a right impulse in his thank offering and his Creator would fain wean him back from 
the path that leads to death. So Jehovah makes known to the offender the secret plague of his 
own heart by the question, “ If thou doest well, is there not uplifting of thy [fallen] counte¬ 
nance? And if thou doest not well, sin croucheth at the door: and towards thee is its desire, 
but thou oughtest to rule over it.” 

This is a very memorable passage. It shows that “ the sacrifice of the wicked is an abom¬ 
ination to the Lord : but the prayer of the upright is his delight.” 3 It also conveys a striking 


'Euripides, Ion, 1315. 2 Hebrews ix, 22. 

3 Proverbs xv, 8, xxi, 27. Compare Isaiah xxix, 13-14; Matthew xv, 8-9. 



124 


NATURE OF TEMPT AT ION—T HE MURDER OF ABEL. 


admonition, and has been needlessly misunderstood from very early days. To give to the word 
chattatli here the meaning of “a sin offering”—a propitiatory victim which thou mayest sacri¬ 
fice— is a willful distortion, and an essential degradation of the passage, and it also thrusts into 
the sacred story a gross anachronism. For sin-offerings were not appointed till centuries after¬ 
ward ; and all such offerings are worse than vain, unless the sin of the heart be removed by true 
repentance. The feminine word chattatli is, indeed, in apposition with a masculine verb, and 
masculine pronouns; and evidently there was, even in ancient times, much uncertainty about the 
rendering, and, perhaps, as to the reading also. But the grammatical anomaly is accounted for, 
since chattatli is only a feminine symbol of a masculine object. 1 So that, “ Sin being personified 
is viewed as masculine.” 

The probable meaning is that sin like a wild beast — like a lion, of which one of the 
Arabic names is “ the lier in wait ”— lurks crouching at the door of life; that its desire is to 
spring upon and rend and devour the soul; but that it can and ought to be subdued by “ a firm 
will, the servant of a tender conscience.” What words could be more pregnant with wise 
significance? They indicate the most essential truths which must ever be borne in mind by the 
sons of a race that God made able to stand yet free to fall — the facts had already been 
shadowed forth in the story of the fall of our first parents—namely, (1) that temptation is ever 
on the watch to destroy them; (2) that their “adversary, the devil, like a roaring lion, goeth 
about seeking whom he may devour ”; (3) that to succumb to the allurements of evil is to be 
ruined by its inherent and necessary consequences ; (4) that there are two factors in temptation, 
the inward and the outward, the opportunity and the concupiscence ; (5) that even in the combi¬ 
nation of both, while there is great peril, there is as yet no sin ; (6) that the treacherous self 
within us is ever ready to betray us to the combined solicitation of desire and the possibility of 
gratifying it; (7) that reason and conscience, like two great Archangels of God, are ever by our 
side to stimulate us to resistance, and to strengthen us to resist effectually; (8) that all our 
passions and the whole domain of our lower and animal nature should be placed under the 
moral sway of a strong and uncontaminated will. These truths are here illustrated under 
another form. “Unto thee is the desire of Sin,” the innate impulse, the concupiscence, the 
sensuality, the affection, the desire of the flesh. “ The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, 
and the vain glory of life,” are ever tempting us and drawing us aside from the path of life to 
the paths of death—“but thou shalt rule over this evil desire; thou ouglitest, and thou canst.” 

But the warning — so gentle and so merciful — was in vain. Cain brooded over the 
gloomy seductions of wrath, envy, hatred, jealousy, malice, in all their murderous instigations 
which sprang from offended pride and wounded self-love. “ And Cain spoke to his brother 
Abel”—it is very possible that by a clerical error a clause has here dropped out, and that the 
reading should be, “And Cain said to Abel, Let us go into the field.” “And when they were in 
the field Cain rose against Abel his brother, and slew him.” No detail, no description, no hint 
as to the weapon or manner of death, is given. The fact is left in all its ghastly simplicity — 
the firstborn man was the first murderer, and the first human death which defaced the image of 
God on “ the human face divine ” was the death of his brother, the murdered victim. Thus the 
first death in the world was a murder, and sin became its own willful executioner. 

The cause of the foul murder is sufficiently intimated even in the intense concentration of 
the narrative. It is needless to add to it the Rabbinic conjectures, that it was due to envy of 
Abel’s wife, or to difference of religious view. Both of these causes have, indeed, deluged the 
world with blood. A woman, as Horace said, has many a time become a deadly cause of war; 
and because of the opinionated arrogance which, persuaded of its own necessary infallibility, has 
not sufficient charity to forgive a difference of opinion, tens of thousands of men and women, 
and innocent boys and girls, have been burnt and murdered by priestly butchers and inquisitors 


1 This view is admitted by the best Hebrew grammarians, Ewald, Gesenius, Kalisch, etc. 



TALMUDIC AND MOHAMMEDAN LEGENDS—POWER OE CONSCIENCE. 


125 


in Italy, and in Spain, and in Mexico, and the voice of their agony, and of their blood, shed in 
rivers, still incarnadines the multitudinous seas, and cries to God for vengeance from the fields 
and cities of the Netherlands. But there is no hint here as to religious divergences. It is, 
however, interesting to note that one Talmudic story attributes the murder to “ lust of gain, 
in the spirit of Cain.” It says that while Cain was plowing Abel crossed the field with his 
flocks, and Cain angrily asked, “AVhy do you let your flocks feed on land which belongs to 
me?” Abel answered, “You eat of their flesh, and clothe yourself with their wool.” Cain 
answered, “You are in my power; who would avenge your death if I slew you?” “God,” 
answered Abel, “ who will surely punish you even for those evil words.” Then Cain in wrath 
struck Abel with his spade and killed him, and then in remorse dug a hole and buried him. 
And immediately afterward the Eternal appeared to Cain, and asked, “ Where is Abel, thy 
brother ? ” 1 

There is a dreadful affinity between all classes of sin, but it suffices us to say with Saint 
John, “ This is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one 
another: not as Cain, who was of the Evil One, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he 
him? Because his works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” 2 

Saint John, then, thinks with the Yahvist that jealousy, envy, pique, and a deep-seated 
hatred of goodness, were a sufficient motive; and an English statesman has said, “ Pique is one 
of the strongest motives in the human mind. Fear is strong but transient. Interest is more 
lasting but weaker: I will ever back pique against them both. It is the spur the devil rides the 
noblest temper with.” 3 

No sooner was the deed done than conscience awoke in all its gorgon terrors. It is ever 
so. There is a power of ghastly inward illumination in the commission of a great crime. In 
the Koran we read that after the murder God sent a crow to scratch in the earth, and show 
him how he might hide his brother’s shame. And in the morning “ he was of those who 
repent.” 

It lights up the theater of the guilty conscience with a fierce unnatural glare, which makes 
the sinner see the heinousness of sin as it really is, and as it appeared to his own innocence, 
before he subjected reason and conscience to the glamour of temptation, and suffered them to be 
enchained by the siren’s song. The gratification afforded by the crime instantly seems to have 
been but infinitesimal when it is seen in its reality, and when the deadly glamour of temptation 
no longer conceals its native ugliness. But then it is too late: the die is cast, the deed is done, 
and is as irrevocable as the shot arrow, as the spoken word. 

The sin finds out the murderer at once. He hears the dread voice within him, which he 
knows to be the voice of God, asking, “ Where is Abel, thy brother?” But he will not at once 
come before the accusing witness which is dragging down his life. He says, with the vain 
subterfuge of lies, “ I know not,” and adds with that brazen insolence of selfishness which his 
parents had not shown in their transgression, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” 

But conscience—God’s primitive vicegerent within us, a monarch in its peremptoriness, and 
a prophet in its information, a priest in its sanctions and anathemas — vouchsafes no answer to 
lies which do not even deceive the liar. God does not deign to heed the effrontery which, in 
the assertion of absolute self-concentrated selfishness, denies all duty toward, and all concern 
for, its brother-man. The only answer he gives is again the throbbing thunder of the question, 
“ What hast thou done ? Hark ! thy brother’s blood-drops cry to me from the ground.” 4 
Judgment is often belated; the sentence is often passed, yet the doom delayed. But this 
lingering of punishment is far rarer in the case of murder than of any other crime, and in this 
instance the doom trod close on the heels of the dementation. The punishment, which had not 

1 Targum of Jonathan, ad loc. 2 1. John iii, 11, 12. Compare Hebrews xi, 4 ; Jude 11. 3 Dodds, “ Genesis,” p. 33. 

* Literally, “bloods”— i. e., “ blood violently shed.” 



126 


THE CURSE AND BRAND OF CAIN. 


in this instance walked with leaden or with wool-shod feet, struck at once with iron hand. 
“And now thou art cursed from the ground 1 which hath opened its mouth to receive thy 

brother’s blood from thy hand.” Thou shalt till it with vainer and less rewarded toil; a fugi¬ 

tive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth. Truly the blood of Jesus “speaketh better 
things than that of Abel! ” 2 

Punishment is never arbitrary or accidental. It is the natural result and consequence of 
the sin itself. It is the sin itself in other forms; so that sin, as it is the surest, is also the 

deadliest punishment of sin. It is the characteristic of murder to exhaust itself in vain efforts; 

to be cursed with innate restlessness; to be haunted; to hear footsteps behind it; to find the earth 
made of glass; to be terrified at the sound of a shaken leaf; to be a fugitive and a vagabond 
upon the earth. 

But Cain was as yet not penitent, whatever, by God’s infinite compassion, he may have 
become thereafter. He complains of his punishment as excessive. His penalty is, he says, 
“ greater than bearing.” This might mean “ my sin is too great for forgiveness ”; but in 
accordance with the context it seems to mean “ greater than I can bear.” It is as though Cain 
pleaded, “ What! one instant’s passion, and a life-long curse ? ” At the moment there was no 
one to shed the blood of him by whose hand man’s blood had been shed. But immediate death 
would have been for Cain the least and lightest of punishments. 

Extended days were for Cain only a lengthening out and increase of punishment. How 
could he live any longer in God’s presence ? He must hide himself and be a miserable fugitive 
and vagabond; and when men increased in number his hand would be against every man, and 
every man’s hand against him, and everyone who found him would slay him. The writer does 
not explain the “ everyone,” though no other human being is mentioned till the birth of Seth, 
who is regarded as a substitute for Abel. Legend gives to Adam and Eve thirty-three sons and 
twenty-seven daughters. 

From physical vengeance it was necessary that Cain should he saved. Sevenfold retribu¬ 
tion would fall on the man who murdered the murderer. 3 His punishment was in the hand of 
God. “And Yahveh gave [or appointed] Cain a sign lest anyone finding him should kill 
him.” 4 5 

What was this “sign” which was half a protector and half a branding curse? The narra¬ 
tive preserves its stern and awful reticence so that all conjecture must be in vain. Yet we 
cannot be wrong in following the merest inference that, as in the case of other murderers, there 
was thereafter an agony and a horror on the countenance of Cain which marked him out from 
other men. Men might read strange matters on his face. The passions leave on human coun¬ 
tenances their furrows and their scathe; and Milton wrote with his usual deep moral insight 
when he makes the cherub, severe in youthful beauty, say to him who was a murderer from the 
beginning.: 

“ Think not, revolted spirit, thy shape the same, 

Or undiminished brightness to be known, 

As when thou stood’st in heaven upright and pure ; 

That glory then, when thou no more wast good, 

Departed from thee, and thou resemblest now 
Thy sin and place of doom obscure and foul.” 6 

1 Hebrew adhamah, that is, “ the curse shall come on thee from the stubborn and barren earth.” So A bn Ezra, Kimchi, 

etc. 2 Hebrews xii, 24. 

3 “ In seven generations Lamech will slay Cain.” Rabb. “ Commentary on Genesis,” p. 36. 

4 Literally, “ a sign for Cain.” The sign was given in mercy and in answer to his request. 

5 “ Paradise Lost,” iv, 835-839. 



PLURALITY OF HUMAN ORIGIN. 


127 


THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION. 

(VERSES 16 TO 24.) 

The fragmentary nature and purely moral significance of the narrative are nowhere more 
distinctly marked than in the fact that scarcely an indication is given of the rapid multiplica¬ 
tion of mankind. The very next verse (16) tells us that Cain — like Satan in the Book of Job 
— “ went from the presence of Yahveh, and dwelt in the land of Nod, in the East (?) of Eden.” 
The word Nod does not mean, as the Vulgate renders it, “a fugitive.” It means “banishment” 
(iii, 24) and misery (Job ii, 11 ; Isaiah li, 19; Jeremiah xvi, 5). To ask where it was, or what 
place the sacred writer meant by it — if he meant any particular place at all — is quite futile. 
It is not even certain that the word qid’math means “ to the East of,” for (as in ii, 14) it may be 
(as the LXX. renders it) “ in front of ” or “ opposite to.” 

“And Cain knew his wife.” Again there is a sort of hiatus in the story, which, heedless 
of all minor and irrelevant curiosities, and intent only on its one sacred end, proceeds direct to 
its point. Not a word is told us as to who Cain’s wife was. 

Two suppositions only seem possible, and neither is without difficulty: 

a. One is that Cain’s wife was his sister. On many grounds it is not easy to accept this 
view, although such marriages of close relations were not unknown in Egypt, in Greece, and 
even among the ancestors of the chosen race as in the case of Abraham, of Lot, and of the 
parents of Moses himself. 1 

b. The only other possible theory seems to be that which was first argued out with great 
ability on scriptural grounds by Peyrerius in his “ Praeadamites ”: that the Book of Genesis, in 
its moral and spiritual sketch of prehistoric days, was concerned only with one race of man, 
especially with the ancestors of the holy race of Seth; and that there existed in the world, 
from the first, other races which were not Adamite. 2 Some modern theologians of great 
eminence have believed that no other meaning can be given to the language of Saint Paul: 
“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the 
similitude of Adam’s transgression.” 3 It may be added that, manifold as are the difficulties 
and uncertainties of ethnology, the tendency of modern science seems to be toward a belief 

. that man originated, in accordance with the divine laws, in several centers of the world’s surface 
from which his various families spread to populate the world. Some of the arguments on this 
subject may be seen in “ The Genesis of the Earth and Man,” by the late R. S. Poole, and 
there are good reasons to believe that, if Scripture nowhere recognizes a plurality of origin for 
different families of the universal human race, it does not, at any rate, exclude the possibility 
of such a view. 

But the Yahvist does not pause to tell us who was Cain’s wife; such information lay 
.outside the deeper objects which he had in view, and is not of any moral or spiritual 
importance. Cain called his son Enoch. No derivation is offered: the word chanak means 
“ to train,” or “ to dedicate ”; more than this we cannot say. 

Again, with a great hiatus in the story, we are told that “ Cain built (or ‘was building’) a 
city” — though nothing is said as to who could have been its inhabitants; and that he called it 
Enoch after his son. The aggregation of men into towns from the isolation of nomadic life 
marks a decided and, in many respects, a perilous advance of civilization. “ Great cities,” a 
physician tells us, “ are the graves of the physique of our race ”; they are certainly in many 
instances the graves also of its best morality. 

1 Genesis xi, 29, xii, 13, xx, 5, 13; Exodus vi, 20. 

2 Peyrerius published his “ Praadamitfe ” in 1655, and though the book was “ condemned and suppressed ” it is still 
procurable with ease and is full of shrewdness and ability. 

3 Romans v, 14. 



EARLY GENEALOGY AND NOMENCLATURE—STORY OF LAMECH. 


128 


The next verse gives only four names for the history of four generations, and the names 
suggest nothing but perplexities which cannot be solved. Enoch’s son was Irad, “One who 
flees”; Irad’s son was Mehujael, which might mean “stricken of God.” His son was Metliu- 
sael, which seems to mean “ the man that is of God.” His son was Lamech, which, from its 
Arabic congener, seems to mean “stalwart.” No further questions as to these names, or as to 
their perplexing similarity to names in the line of Seth, can be answered. 

But over the story of Lamech the Yahvist pauses. As “ he took two wives,” it seems to be 
indicated that he was the first introducer of the unprimitive, disastrous, and degrading practice 
of polygamy; and the names of his two wives — Adah, “adornment,” and Zillah, “shade,” — 
with that of his daughter Naamah, “pleasant,” are perhaps recorded to intimate a growing sense 
of the influence produced over the heart of men by the beauty of womanhood. With the sons of 
Lamech began an immense progress in the arts which add to the pleasure and power of life. 
Jabal—(“increase”?) the son of Adah — is the father of tent dwellers and cattle possession, 
the introducer of the pastoral life of tribes. 1 2 Jubal, the other son of Adah, was the inventor of 
music, “the father of all those who handle harp 3 and pipe.” Tubal-Cain, son of Zillah, marks 
a more dangerous progress, which increased war and bloodshed. He was “ a sharpener (or 
forger 3 ) of every kind of instrument of brass and iron.” 4 In other words, he was the earliest 
of braziers and iron-smiths. His sister was named Naamah, “ loveliness.” 

At this point is inserted the first specimen of Hebrew poetry, a song of three verses, each 
consisting of two lines of synonymous antithetic parallelism : 

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice ; 

Ye wives of Lamech, listen to my speech : 

For I have slain a man for wounding me, 

And a youth for bruising me: 

If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, 

Then Lamech seven and seventyfold.” 

Endless explanations have been offered of this enigmatic little poem, but it is now generally 
held to indicate the first instance of apology for that justifiable homicide in self-defense, which 
necessarily played a large part in the rude civilization and imperfect justice of ancient times. 
Apparently someone—perhaps a youth — had attacked and wounded Lamech; and he — 
strong in the weapons which his son Tubal-Cain had invented — had defended his own* 
imperilled life, and in doing so had slain the aggressor. His wives might well be horrified at 
this shedding of blood. They might naturally dread lest Lamech, like Cain his ancestor, 
should be driven forth as a vagabond with the murderer’s brand upon his brow. But Lamech 
dissipated their fears. He has committed homicide, but it was not a crime. Pie has but 
repelled a murderous assailant for wounding him. If the avenger of the murderer Cain was to 
undergo a sevenfold vengeance, then if any blood-avenger attempted to wreak vengeance upon 
Lamech for his mischance he would incur a seventy-seven fold retribution. Whether more 
than this is intended—whether the verses imply a defiant self-reliance, and a determination on 
Lamech’s part to protect himself and to repel all attempt to punish him, without any reference 
to God and his laws — cannot be affirmed with any certainty. 

At this point the Yahvist leaves forever the race of Cain; but legend and the Haggadah 
have been busy with the name and destiny of the first murderer. 

The Rabbis drew from his story the lesson of the value of repentance. They say that 
Adam, meeting Cain, wondered at his escape from instant vengeance: “Father!” answered 

1 We can only guess at the meaning of the name; Jabal may mean “wanderer” or “leader,” and Jubal “musician.” 
(Compare yobel, jubilee.) 

2 Job xxi, 12, xxx, 31; Psalm cl, 4. 3 Authorized Version, margin, “ whetter.” 

4 Vulgate, Malleator etfaber. Revised Version, “ the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron.” By “ brass ” 

must be meant “ bronze ” or copper. 



SONS AND DESCENDANTS OF ADAM. 


129 


('ain, “I recognized my sin and repented, and God pitied me.” “So great is the power of 
repentance,” cried Adam; “and I knew it not!” 1 

Reverting to our first parents, the narrator tells us that, after Abel’s murder, another son 
was born to them when Adam was 130 2 * years old, and that Eve called his name Seth, “substi¬ 
tute”; ,! for she regarded him as a gift from God “in the place of Abel whom Cain slew.” In 
due time Seth had a son, whom he called Enos. 4 All that we are told of Enos is that “ he 
began to invoke the name of Yaliveh,” or according to another rendering “then began [men] 
to call with N aliveh’s name,” i. e., to name and to worship him, and to call upon him by the 
name of Yaveh. 5 

The clause is full of difficulties, and the versions vary considerably both in the translation 
and the interpretation. The old explanation was that men then began “ to call themselves by 
the name of Yaliveh ”; while Jewish writers (Josephus, and the Targums of Onkelos and 
Jonathan) render it, “they began to desecrate the name of Yaliveh by idolatries.” There 
can, however, be little doubt that the rendering given in our King James and Revised 
Versions is correct, and that by this verse is meant the development of prayer and intelligent 
worship in the jiious line of Seth. The Yahvist, unlike the Priestly writer, uses the covenant- 
name of God repeatedly in his earliest narratives, and does not seem to accept the view that 
Elohim had been unknown by the name of Yaliveh before the call of Moses. 6 


CHAPTER V. 

THE GENERATIONS OF MANKIND IN TIIE LINE OF SETH FROM ADAM TO NOAH. 

p. 

I N the fifth chapter we revert to the records of P, the Priestly writer of Genesis i. The name 
Elohim is again substituted for the name Yaliveh. The vivid narrative of the Yahvist is 
followed by a list of names with formal chronological and statistical details. We also meet 
once more with the familiar phrases of P, toVdoth, “ generations ”; d'moth and tselem, “ image 
and likeness ”; and others; while there is scarcely an allusion to any question which affects 
spiritual or other directly human interests, apart from the actual genealogy. 

We will first summarize the chapter, and will touch on some of the questions which it 
suggests as a Sepher ToVdoth, or “ book of generations.” 

It savs that after God had created the human race, male and female, and blessed them and 
called them man, Adam lived 130 years and begat Seth, lived 800 years longer, begat other sons 
and daughters, and died aged 930. 

Seth lived 105 years, begat Enos; lived 807 years longer, and died aged 912. Cainan 
lived 70 years, begat Mahalaleel; lived 840 years longer, and died aged 910. Mahalaleel lived 
65 years, begat Jared ; lived 830 years longer, and died aged 895. Jared lived 162 years, begat 
Enoch ; lived 800 years longer, and died aged 962. Enoch lived 65 years, begat Methuselah; 
lived 300 years longer, and died aged 365. 

1 Midrash Kabbah, I, §22. 2 Genesis v, 3: “Begat a son in his own likeness.” 

Hebrew, Slieth. Others render it “ foundation ” or “ appointed.” 

*Enosh, “ man,” with reference to his weakness, unless it be from an Arabic root connoting sociability. 

5 Genesis iv, 26. 

6 Exodus iii, 14, vi, 3: The words “ I am that I am” (i. c., “Iam unchangeable”), also rendered “ I become that I 
become ” (Hofmann : i. e., “ I am ever revealing and manifesting myself anew”) or, “I will be what I will be ” (Robertson 
Smith). 




130 


LONGEVITY OF THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS. 


Here at Enoch, “ the seventh from Adam,” the list is broken to account for the compara¬ 
tively early death of Enoch by the clause that “ he walked with God, and he was not, for God 
took him.” 

The shortest-lived of the antediluvian patriarchs is followed by the longest-lived; for 
Methuselah lived 187 years, begat Lamech; lived 782 years more, and died aged 969. Lamech 
lived 182 years, begat Noah; lived 595 years more, and died aged 777. At this point verse 
29 is perhaps taken from the Yahvist, and has been inserted by the Redactor into the priestly 
narrative. It explains the name Noah by the remark of Lamech, “This one will comfort 
us from our work, and the toil of our hands from the ground which Yahveh hath cursed.” 

That the verse is an insertion into the narrative of P is now recognized by all the chief 
critics (1), because it reverts to the name Yahveh; (2), because it uses the word itstsabon, 
“ sorrow,” which is one of the words peculiar to J (iii, 16, 17) ; (3), because it directly alludes 
to the curse on the ground, 1 which has only been narrated by J; and (4), because it gives the 
explanation, or assonance, of the name of Noah after the usual manner of the Yahvist. The 
name Noah may mentally recall the verb. nacham, “ to comfort,” but it is universally admitted 
that the name cannot be etymologically derived from the verb. Noah means “ rest,” and the 
following verb seems to involve a pregnant construction — “ will comfort and give us rest.” 
The source of the comfort is not in this place further indicated; the Rabbis made it refer 
prophetically to an invention of agricultural implements, or to the discovery of the vine. 

We are not told the age of Noah at the birth of his firstborn, but only that by the time he 
was 500 years old he had three sons — Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 

Let us now touch on various questions and difficulties which this chapter suggests. 

i. Are the numbers traditional or purely artificial, and, in that case, what is their signifi¬ 
cance, if they have any ? 

As regards this we must first observe that these numbers were so little regarded as fixed 
or sacred, that they differ widely in the Hebrew text, in the Samaritan Pentateuch and in 
the LXX. 

Nothing has ever been made either of the figures of the Hebrew text or of their variations. 
Any attempt to examine the chronology closely would only lead us into perfectly fruitless and 
dubious intricacies. There are, indeed, ten generations, and ten, as the number of complete¬ 
ness, is frequently found both in the Pentateuch and in ancient mythologies; but no certain 
conclusion of any kind can be arrived at. 

ii. As to the great ages attained by the patriarchs, it was clearly the object of the Hebrew 
writers to indicate the increasing contraction of human life since the antediluvian epoch. 
Thus, Noah lived 950 years; Abraham, 175; Jacob, 147; Moses, 120; Joshua, 110; whilst 
David was decrepit in the seventieth year. The psalmist represents three-score and ten as the 
natural duration of human life, and speaks of its extension even to eighty as rare and almost 
calamitous. Physiology has declared it to be an impossibility for man to live more than two 
hundred years, and the apologetic considerations urged in favor of the possibility — apart from 
miracle — are believed to be untenable. Attempts, have, therefore, been made to tamper with 
the plain, unvarying meaning of the word “year,” and to argue that only months or years 
of three months are intended; or that by each name is meant a tribe of descendants also. 
These attempts, besides being in other respects baseless, are shown to be absurd by a mere glance 
at the narrative itself. If they be admitted, Mahalaleel and Enoch must have been parents at 
an age startlingly too early. 

iii. From the etymology of the names nothing is deducible but nugatory results. For 
theoretic purposes they are as uncertain as the dim analogies suggested for them from various 
ancient mythologies. We can only note with surprise the close resemblance of three of these 


1 Adamah, not eretz, “the earth. 



ENOCH , METHUSELAH , AND LAMECH. 


131 


names — Jared, Mahalaleel, and Methuselah to those of Irad, Maliujael, and Methushael in the 
line of Cain; and the actual identity of the names of two Sethites and two Cainites — Enoch 
and Lamech. 

iv. The expression that “ Enoch walked with God ” (v, 22, 24) indicates a close and 
holy union of his will with the will of his Creator and is stronger than “ walking before God ” 
(xvii, 1), or “ walking after God ” (Deuteronomy xiii, 4). But the simple expression was too 
anthropomorphic for translators and Targumists. The LXX. and the Peshitto render it, 
“Enoch was well-pleasing to God.” And Onkelos has “Enoch walked in the fear of Jehovah.” 
The Book of Enoch says (xii, 2), “All his action was with the holy ones and with the watchers 
during his life.” The notice respecting him seems to be introduced to show that his compara¬ 
tively early death was neither a punishment nor a calamity, since in an age which abounded 
with evil the holiest of the patriarchs was also the shortest lived. His end is simply and 
vaguely indicated by the words, “he was not; for Elohim took him.” In other words, he 
passed away. In the Septuagint we read, “he was not found, because God translated him.” 
The son of Sirach (xliv, 16) uses the same phrase. He says (xlix, 14) “ upon the earth was no 
man created like Enoch ; for he was taken from the earth.” Philo takes Enoch’s translation as 
-a symbol of his change to a better life and ignores his ascension. This seems to have been the 
view of the early Jews. In the “ Beresliith Rabba ” (xxv), it is said that his translation 
consisted in abandoning wickedness and becoming pious, and God said that if he continued 
pious he would take him out of the world. The Targum of Onkelos accordingly renders it, 
“ He was not, because God made him to die.” 

The writer of the'Epistle to the Hebrews says: “By faith Enoch was translated, that he 
should not see death ; and he was not found, because God translated him : for before his trans¬ 
lation he hath had witness borne to him that he had been well-pleasing unto God ; and without 
faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him.” 1 In the text of Genesis it is not said that 
he did not die, but this is perhaps implied. In the Epistle of Jude (verses 14, 15) we read 
that “ Enoch, the seventh from Adam,” prophesied the second advent of Christ to judge 
sinners. 

Enoch’s son Methuselah was the longest lived of all the patriarchs. He attained the age 
of 969 years. His son Lamech was 182 years old when he begat a son, whom he named Noah, 
or “ rest,” saying that “ he shall comfort us from our work and labor from the ground.” 2 I 
have already mentioned that, according to Jewish tradition, Noah comforted men and made 
labor amid the thorns and the thistles of the cursed ground more easy by inventing plows and 
other instruments of husbandry. 

Lamech died at the age of 777; and by the time that Noah was 5JO years old he had three 
sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhetli; Shem may mean “renown,” Ham “heat,” Japhetli “the 
widener.” It is clear that materials no longer exist for a full understanding of what was 
intended by these early traditions and details. 

•Hebrews xi, 5 (Revised Version). 

2 Not “because of the ground,” but “from our labor (arising) from the ground.” The words in Hebrew have a triple 
rhyme, and an assonance. The Book of Enoch (cv) has marvelous tales of Noah’s supernatural beauty, etc. 


11 



CHAPTER VI. 


j. 

THE CORRUPTION OF MAN. 

(GENESIS VI, 1 TO 8. 1 ) 

I F the critics be right, it is the Yahvist who here introduces, probably from external sources 
of ancient and universal tradition, a brief and somewhat enigmatic episode to account for 
the corruption of mankind. The passage is meant to show the moral necessity for the flood, 
which destroyed the world of the ungodly. 

The patriarchal age was by no means an age of universal innocence. On the contrary, as 
men began to multiply, and sons and daughters were horn to them, the pride of womanhood led 
to luxury and vanity, then the beauty of womanhood tempted depraved hearts to the substi¬ 
tution of carnal desire for holy married love. The desecration of the primeval sanctities in 
ordinary life led to strange, unhallowed unions, “and it came to pass when men began to 
multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God 
saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, and took for themselves wives of all that 
they chose.” 

i. Who were these “Sons of Elohim?” 2 In the Bible the word always means superior 
beings of heavenly origin. They are so called in Job, Daniel, and the Psalms. 3 Hence, all 
the most ancient interpreters so understood the phrase in this place. It is the view taken 
in the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and Philo. It is also the view unmistakably 
expressed in II. Peter ii, 4: “ For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them 
down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and 
spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others a herald of righteousness, 
when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly . . .” We have a reference to the 

same apostacy in the Epistle of Saint Jude (verse 6), “And angels which kept not their own 
principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under dark¬ 
ness unto the judgment of the great day . . . having in like manner with these [Sodom 

and Gomorrah] given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh.” In the 
Book of Enoch this view is set forth at great length (verses 6-10). We are there told how 
these fallen and self-corrupted denizens of heaven, to the number of 200, descended on Mount 
Hermon, chose the most beautiful women for their unnatural wooing, taught them luxury and 
witchcraft, and became by them the fathers of giants 3,000 cubits high, who devastated the 
world into famine and misery. At last four great angels, Michael, Gabriel, Surjan, Urgar, 
appealed to God to interpose and punish. Therefore, God flung down Azazel, the wickedest of 
these fallen spirits, on a bed of sharp rocks, and bound him in fetters till he shall he flung at 
last into the fiery pool. After this the giant demons, who were the offspring of these corrupted 
angels, fought against and destroyed each other and they, too, were reserved in darkness for 
their final doom. 4 

But the apparently mythical character of these loves of the fallen angels with the 
daughters of men led to early efforts to eliminate such a meaning from the sacred text. 5 This 
can only be done by methods of subterfuge, and unconsciously dishonest exegesis, which, 

1 Verse 7, chapter vi, seems to belong to the Redactor. 

2 Never “ sons of Yahveh,” because that is the covenant-name of God with man. 

3 Job i, 6, ii, 1, xxxviii, 7; Psalms xxix, 1, lxxxix, 7 ; Daniel iii, 25. 

4 See Jellinek in “ Midrash Abchir.” Azazel (Leviticus xvi, 8) the inventor of rouge, etc., is stigmatized as the worst. 

6 See Perowne in “ Smith’s Dictionary,” s. v. Noah. 


132 




ANOMALOUS COHABITATION—MAN'S AGE AND STATURE. 


133 


springing not from fearless inquiry but from a priori dogmatic bias, have reduced whole 
volumes, nay whole libraries, of Scriptural interpretation to self-refuting futility. 

These attempts took two directions. 

i. The Targums of Pseudo-Jonathan and Onkelos and the “ Bereshith Rabba” 1 —followed 
by Saadia Rashi, Abn Ezra, and in modern times by Spinoza, Herder, and Buttmann — under¬ 
stood the “ Sons of Elohim ” to mean “ the sons of princes.” But this way of escape from a 
view which they disliked is impossible. There would have been no monstrous criminality in 
the inter-marriage of the mighty and the poor; and further, “ The daughters of Adam,” i. e., 
of the human race ( benoth ha adham ), cannot possibly mean merely women of humble rank, nor 
would “ daughters of men ” be, in that case, a true antithesis to “ sons of God.” 

ii. Some of the later Fathers adopted another interpretation no less imaginary, and were 
followed by the reformers, and by masses of modern pre-critical or biased exegetes like Hsever- 
nick, Hengstenberg, and others. They explained “ the sons of God ” to be the pious race of 
Seth, “ which unwisely mixed itself in marriage with the wicked Cainites.” But, even if “ sons 
of God ” could be thus baldly and abruptly used to describe “ pious men,” it is inconceivable 
that daughters of men should have a perfectly general meaning in verse 1 and a very special 
one in the next clause. 

iii. Other glosses are isolated and need no notice. There can be no question that we are 
here meant to understand the unlawful intercourse of women and fallen spirits. 

As in the Book of Enoch and in the Epistle to Saint Peter and Saint Jude, Yahveh is 
rendered indignant by this depravity, and he said, “ my spirit shall not abide (or rule) in man 
forever.” 2 Whatever be the exact significance of the verb, the general sense seems to be that 
God will take away from man the breath of divine life which he had depraved. 

The next words usually rendered “ for that he also is flesh ” are no less uncertain. The 
word b’shaggam is of highly dubious meaning. Dillmann, with a slight change of reading, 
follows Gesenius, Yater, and Tuch, and renders “on account of their error he is flesh”; and this 
rendering is given in the margin of our Revised Version in the form, “in their going astray 
they are flesh.” The text of the word is probably corrupt. Nor can we be sure as to the 
meaning of “ but his days shall be 120 years.” This is usually understood to mean that 
human life would hereafter be shortened to the limit of 120 years. But there are two difficul¬ 
ties in this view. On the one hand, though we are no longer told of men living 900 years and 
upward, yet Noah, Abram, and the postdiluvian Fathers, from Shem to Terah, 3 all greatly 
exceeded the limit of 120 years, and, on the other hand, in historical times 80 years, not 120, 
became the normal limit of human life. 4 

There is, therefore, much to be said for the opinion that in these words a respite of 120 
years as a time for repentance is granted to men before the deluge. In the East 120 years is 
“an age” and an astronomical cycle (12 x 10). 

The fourth verse seems to be partly retrospective. It tells us that the “ giants ( n’philim ) 
were on the earth in those days,” and that afterward there were heroes of old ( gibborim ) “ the 
men of renown.” The word n’philim seems to be derived from naphal, “ to fall.” It has been 
variously rendered, “giants,” “robbers,” “men of violence,” “bastards,” and “fallen spirits.” 
All that we can say is that in this slight allusion we are in the same sphere of ancient traditions 
as that of the Arabians, who tell of their giant predecessors the Adites, the Themudites. The 
children of Israel looked on the colossal sons of Anak as akin to these prehistoric races. 5 
Perhaps the widely diffused belief in gigantic ancient tribes may have been fostered or created 
by the discovery of fossil bones, which belong to extinct animals but were mistaken for human 
remains. 

1 Chapter xxvi. 2 So margin Revised Version ; Vulgate, non permanebit. 3 Genesis xi, 10-33. 

4 Psalm xc, 10 ; compare I. Samuel iv, 15-18. 5 Numbers xiii, 33, where they are expressly called Nephilim. 



134 


ANTEDILUVIAN WICKEDNESS—BUILDING OF THE ARK. 


Amid the universal corruption “Yahveh repented that he had made man, since every 
form of the thought of his heart was only evil, and he was pained in his heart.” 

Of course, there is another and higher sense in which “ God is not a man, that he should 
repent.” 1 But the expression is perfectly intelligible, if taken as frankly anthropopathic. 
Yet even as far back as the days of the LXX. there was an attempt to smooth it down. 
Onkelos renders it, “And spake by his word to break their strength according to his will,” and 
Pseudo-Jonathan, “And disputed with his word concerning him.” 

Yahveh, therefore, determined to blot out from the face of the earth alike the human race, 
and animals, and reptiles, and birds, which were regarded as sharing with man the common 
curse. “ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” 

THE FLOOD, AS NARRATED BY THE PRIESTLY WRITER. 

(GENESIS YI, 9 TO 22.) 

P. 

That we here pass from J to P is indicated at once by the new heading used exclu¬ 
sively by the Priestly writer, “ These are the- generations of Noah.” The general pragma¬ 
tism of the narrative, the formal introduction of dates and numbers, the recurrent phrases,, the 
use of the name Elohim, and many other identities of style with his previous and subsequent 
narratives sufficiently indicate the author. Noah is introduced as though he had not been 
previously mentioned, as “ a righteous man and perfect ” among his contemporaries “ in his 
generation” (King James Version). Like Enoch he walked with God. Saint Peter calls 
him “ a preacher of righteousness,” and the Koran, Nabi Allah, “ prophet of God.” He had 
three sons, Sliem, Ham, and Japhetli. The earth was utterly lull of corruption and violence, 
and by a divine “ measure for measure ” man’s corruption necessitated, nay involved, his 
destruction. Consequently God reveals to Noah his determination to obliterate all living 
things, and bade him build an ark 2 of gopher wood (some resinous tree, perhaps juniper), and 
to smear it within and without with pitch, 3 to prevent leakage. It was to he made in cells, 4 in 
the shape of a huge chest of three stories, 300 cubits long, 50 broad, and 30 high (i. e., 
450,000 cubits in contents). It was to have a door at one side ; and perhaps — for the meaning 
is uncertain — a window, 5 a cubit high, running round its four sides to give light. In this ark 
he should he saved amid the universal destruction of the coming flood. 6 With him should he 
saved his wife, his three sons, and their three wives. He was to take with him pairs of animals, 
birds, and reptiles, which should “ come to him,” to preserve them alive. He was also to gather 
stores of food for himself and for them ; and all these commands he obeyed. Such is the 
narrative of the Priestly writer. We will consider its significance and some of the problems it 
suggests, when we have given the parallel narrative of the Yahvist. 


1 Numbers xxiii, 19 ; I. Samuel xv, 29. “The strength of Israel will not lie nor repent” ; after verse II, “It repenteth 

me that I have set up Saul to be king.” a T&bdh, “an oblong chest.” Perhaps an Egyptian word. 

3 Kopher, bitumen or asphalt. 4 Kinntm, literally “ nests.” 

5 Not “a lattice,” as vii, 11, viii, 2; nor “an aperture,” as in viii, 6; hut tsohar, “light,” not used elsewhere hut in the 

dual, “ double-light,” equivalent to midday. 

6 Mabbul, “flood”; only of the deluge (Psalm xxix, 10) “the Lord sat as king at the flood ” (Revised Version). 






CHAPTER VII. 

THE FLOOD AND THE NARRATIVE OF THE YAHVIST. 

(GENESIS VII, 1-19 —J, EXCEPT PERHAPS, 6-9, 11, 13-16a.) 

J. 

^PHE Lord bids Noah and his house enter the ark, and take to him all clean creatures and 
J- birds by sevens, and all unclean by pairs, for after seven days it should rain for forty 
days and nights, and every living thing should be destroyed. The sixth verse, which says that 
Noah was 600 years old when he entered the ark, perhaps belongs to P. 

The writer does not tell us how Noah was to know which beasts were clean and which were 
unclean, so many centuries before the institution of Levitism ; but the necessity for taking 
seven pairs of the clean creatures arose from the fact that a thank offering “ of every clean beast 
and every clean fowl” is mentioned in viii, 20. The expression “seven by seven” (vii, 2), 
taken in connection with the remark that all creatures went into the ark two by two, seems 
clearly to show that seven pairs of every clean beast and fowl are meant. The numbers 
“seven ” and “ forty ” have a symbolic significance. Tbe first mystically indicates “the striving 
of man up to God the second is constantly used in Scripture with connotations of penalty. 1 

The mention of the fact that Yaliveil “shut the door after Noah,” and the brief description 
of the result of the deluge in verses 12, 17, 22, 23 may also belong to J. 

The rest of the chapter, in the opinion of most modern critics, belongs to P or to the 
Redactor. It tells us that the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows 2 of 
heaven opened on the seventeenth day of the second month (April or May 3 ); and that on that 
day, Noah, his family, and all animals, two and two, male and female, and “ every bird of every 
wing,” all entered the ark. The ark was uplifted by tbe increasing waters, which covered “all 
the high mountains under the whole heaven.” Rising above them to a depth of fifteen cubits. 
It is probably to tbe Yahvist that we owe the statement that everything perished except Noah 
and his family, while perhaps it was the Priestly writer who recorded that the waters prevailed 
upon the earth 150 days. 

DETAILS ABOUT THE FLOOD, 

(GENESIS VIII, 2b TO 20. 4 ) 

The narrative mainly of J is continued in Genesis viii. The rain ceased, the waters 
ebbed away and the earth was dried by a wind sent from God. On the seventeenth day of the 
seventh month the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. 5 After forty days Noah opened 
the window of the ark and sent out the raven which the old Accadians regarded as “ the bird of 
destiny,” but it flew to and fro and did not return. Then he sent forth a dove, which, finding 
no rest for the sole of her foot, flew back to the ark and Noah pulled her in. After seven days 
he again let her fly and she returned at eventide with a fresh olive leaf in her beak. 6 After 

1 See Numbers xiv, 34; Deuteronomy xxv, 3, etc. 

2 Hebrew arubbdth, “The latticed windows.” Compare Isaiah xxiv, 18; Job xxxviii, 16; Proverbs viii, 28 ; Spurrell. 

3 Or according to others, Marchesvan, the rain month, October. 

4 Probably verses 1 and 2a do not belong to J, and other verses seem to be added, e. g., 3b-5, 14-19. 

5 Ararat, a country. II. Kings xix, 37 ; Isaiah xxxvii, 38 ; (LXX., Armenia, which is, in Assyrian, U-ra-ar-ti). Saint 
Jerome says that Ararat is the plain at the foot of Taurus through which flows the Araxes. There is no proof that Mount 
Masis, the highest peak, is intended. 

6 The olive flourishes in Armenia, and it is said to survive under water. 


135 


136 


SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DELUGE. 


waiting another seven days he sent her forth again. She returned no more and Noah removed 
the covering of the ark, looked, and the face of the ground was dry. The word used for 
“ covering ” is used also for the skin-covering of the tabernacle. 

Let us now consider various questions which naturally arise from the mosaic work of these 
combined narratives. What is the moral and spiritual significance of the deluge? That 
question is sufficiently answered in the New Testament. 

i. It was the punishment for sin; it was a flood “ brought upon the world of the ungodly.” 
Nor was it an irremediable, sudden destruction, sent without warning. On the contrary, for 
120 years Noah had been a preacher of righteousness to his guilty contemporaries, and the 
long suffering of God had waited in the days of Noah. 1 Thus regarded, the story of the 
deluge is a stern but most salutary lesson for man. It represents the eternal truth that God 
hates sin, and that when sin has become incurably ingrained in a nation, in a church, in a 
race, in a world, in the heart of an individual, then, at all costs, and because of that eternal 
love of which sin is the defiance, God will obliterate and sweep it away. 

ii. It was a new beginning. When evil has become fixed, finished, and incurable, the pit 
swallows it up ; the earth as it were opens her mouth to vomit out her inhabitants (Leviticus 
xviii, 25). 

iii. It was a lustral wave which swept over the polluted earth. Thus, Saint Peter expressly 
says that Christ, “being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, in which also he 
went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient, when the long 
suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that 
is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also, after a true likeness [or “ in the ante- 
type ”], doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the 
interrogation of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 2 In 
the point of view of the great apostle the deluge was the baptism and regeneration of the world. 

iv. In the contemplation of these moral and spiritual conceptions, minor questions of 
history, archaeology, and criticism shrink into comparative insignificance. They were, indeed, of 
little or no importance in the mind of the writers. All such questions we will glance at a little 
later. Meanwhile it is surely an unmistakable fact that here we have two separate narratives 
side by side. Apart from obvious repetitions, and differences of style and expression, there 
appear to be distinct variations between the details of P and J. Omitting any minor points 
we may mention three of these. (1) In P (vi, 19-20) Noah is commanded to take with him into 
the ark one pair of all living animals, birds, and reptiles: but in J he is bidden to take with 
him all clean animals and fowls by sevens, i. e., fourteen of each; and unclean species by 
single pairs (vii, 2-8). The reason for this discrepancy can only be a matter of conjecture. 
Reuss thinks that the Yahvist supposed that some of the clean creatures would be for food, 
while the Priestly writer regarded the Sethites as vegetarians. Others suppose that the extra 
number of clean creatures was to provide for the needs of sacrifice. (2) In P (vii, 11, viii, 2) 
the deluge is attributed to the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, and the opening of the 
windows of heaven. In J (vii, 4-12) it is ascribed to the agency of rain only. (3) There 
seems to be an irreconcilable chronology in the reports of the deluge. In P (vii, 11) the 
deluge begins on the seventeenth day of the second month of the 600th year of Noah. In 
150 days the waters have attained their maximum depth (viii, 3). This brings us to the 
seventeenth day of the seventh month, so that the rise of the waters lasted for five months 
of thirty days. The mountain tops appear on the first day of the tenth month (viii, 5). By 
the first day of Noah’s 601st year (viii, 13) the face of the ground is dry; and the earth is 

1 1. Peter iii, 20. 

2 1. Peter iii, 18, 21. Compare Job xxii, 15-19 ; Isaiah xxiv, 5, 6,18. “The earth is defiled under the inhabitants thereof. 
Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth.” Matthew xxiv, 38 ff.; Luke xvii, 26, ff.; II. Peter ii, 5, iii, 6. 



EXTENT OF THE DELUGE—CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARK 


137 


perfectly dry by the twenty-seventh day of the second month. This gives us a lunar year, 
from the seventeenth of the second month of the 600th year of Noah’s life to the seventeenth 
of the second month of the 601st year, and ten days, i. e ., 370 days. Now this is neither a 
lunar nor a solar year. 1 But in J the duration of the flood seems to be much shorter. Noah 
is bidden to enter the ark (vii, 1), because, in seven days (vii, 4) the rain will begin. It rains for 
forty days and nights (vii, 12, 17) and after forty days (viii, 6) Noah opens the ark, and lets 
loose, at periods of seven days, “ the raven,” and then three successive times a dove. It is not 
easy to see how to manipulate forty and twenty-eight, equivalent to sixty-eight, days so as to 
reconcile the calculation with the three hundred and seventy days of P, though, doubtless, the 
task may not be beyond the skill of harmonists, who attack it with determined prepossessions, 
and by all sorts of strange methods force the two stories to say exactly the same thing. 

v. W as the flood universal, as regards the whole surface of the globe ? The difficulties of 
accepting such a view ill the face of the facts revealed to us by scientific examinations of the 
earth’s surface, its existing animals and its fossils, are immense and, indeed, insuperable, but (1) 
the flood is represented as universal, as regards that race of man with which the sacred writers 
are dealing — the degenerate Sethites — and they might have been destroyed by a partial 
deluge; and (2) it is wholly needless to press literally the oriental hyperbole that, “ all the 
high mountains which are under the whole heavens were covered,” and that “the waters 
prevailed fifteen cubits above them.” Is there a single commentator who has ever dreamed of 
literally interpreting the phrase of Obadiah in I. Kings xviii, 10, that “There is no nation or 
kingdom, whither my Lord hath not sent to seek thee ? ” Or the statement (Genesis xli, 57) 
that “ all countries came to Egypt to buy corn ? ” It is equally superfluous to insist on the 
literal meaning here. If, because of this single phrase and a few other general expressions, 
anyone thinks it a matter of very ignorant faith to believe that there were fifteen cubits — more 
than twenty-two feet — of water above the summits of Chimborazo and Dhawalaghiri, science 
and criticism are not for him. Intellectual childishness and a priori dogmatism, even though 
in these matters they shut their eyes to the clearest indication of that light of advancing 
knowledge, which, like all other truth, is a revelation from God, need not, however, hinder 
the reception of moral and spiritual truth. The teaching of vital truth was the one end of 
these sacred writings, which, alike for the wise and for the foolish, for the learned and for 
the ignorant, “contain all things necessary for salvation.” If we seek and find that divine 
revelation, we need not be troubled by minor difficulties. 

vi. Immense pains have been bestowed on the attempt to explain the construction of the 
ark. A Dutch Mennonite, named Jansen, in the year 1609, attempted to construct an ark on 
the same model at Hoorn. The attempt failed, because the structure broke to pieces. The 
word tebah is apparently Egyptian and is only used again for the ark of bulrushes in which 
the child Moses was laid. 2 The description (vi, 15) is that of a colossal, oblong chest — a 
parallelopiped of wood, smeared with bitumen, of vast cubic contents, three stories high, but 
apparently with only a single door in its side. Apart from a special series of miracles, such a 
structure would have been equally impossible and useless. If it could be so built at all, it must 
have sunk deep into the water, and then the numberless mass of large animals, wild and tame, 
of birds and reptiles, amounting to many thousand, in the lowest story, could have had neither 
light nor air. All that we are told about any window is couched in the obscure words (vi, 16) 
“A light” (or “roof”) “shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shaft thou finish it upward ” 
(or “ from above ”). On the supposition that the writer attached importance to the details, 
and was not exclusively occupied in impressing moral truth by powerful symbols, it is clear 
that, in all which affects the ark, we are plunged into a complicated series of stupendous and 


1 Twelve lunar months only make about 354 days, but the day of the new moon was often counted twice, 

2 Egyptian tba, “ chest and tpt, “ boat.” 



138 


ANCIENT LEGENDS OF A DELUGE. 


continuous miracles, on which we can throw no further light, and from which no further lessons 
are any longer discoverable. 

vil. Legends of a deluge and of the preservation of one righteous man with his family to 
repeople the earth, though they are not, as lias sometimes been asserted, universal, are yet 
widely diffused. They exist among very different classes of nations. They are not found, 
apparently, among nations which inhabit countries which from their physiography are exempt 
from such cataclysms, as, for instance, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and in some cases supposed 
“ traditions ” among savages were not indigenous, but were only the dim, incongrous echoes of 
what they had heard from Christian travelers and missionaries. Among the Chinese, liable to 
overwhelming disaster by the flooding of such rivers, as the Hoang Ho, it was natural to expect 
stories of deluges. But the features of closest resemblance to the sacred narrative are found in 
the traditions of the Greeks, the Hindoos, and above all the ancient Chaldeans. 

1. The Greeks had two such myths: that of Ogyges and that of Deucalion. That of 
Ogyges is very vague and is exclusively connected with Boeotia, and the lake Copais; but that 
of Deucalion in many incidents resembles the Noachian deluge. The world had sunk into 
infamy. The ocean and the clouds combined to drown all living creatures; but the pious 
Deucalion, guided by his father Prometheus, had built a chest in which he floated safely with 
his wife Pyrrha, and by which he was safely borne to the peaks of Parnassus. There he sac¬ 
rificed a thankoffering. As given by Lucian, this legend is connected with Hieropolis. 
Deucalion, like Noah, endeavors to discover the condition of the earth by sending forth a dove 
from his ark which returns the first time, but not the second. 

2. In the Indian tradition a demon, Hayagriva, steals the Vedas and the world is plunged 
into wickedness, from which only the seven saints and Satyavrata or Vaivaswata, the seventh 
Mann, are exempt. Vishnu appearing to Satyavrata, as a fish, prophesies that in seven days 
there will be a universal deluge, and warns the pious king to take with him into an ark the 
seven saints, their wives, and one pair of all animals. In seven days the world is overwhelmed 
in the waters of the ocean, swollen by torrents of rain. Satyavrata sees a boat, enters it with 
the saints, is drawn by Vishnu himself in the form of a horned fish till after many years he is 
left safe on Mount Himaran, and becomes the seventh Manu. After this follows an incident 
which somewhat resembles the curse of Ham. 

3. Still nearer to the Jewish tradition is that of Chaldea. Thirty years ago it was only 
known from the meager account of Berosus (died about 260 B. C.), but in 1872 Mr. George 
Smith translated a much fuller form of this myth from Assyrian bricks in the British Museum 
which had been copied for the famous library of King Assur-bani-pal (668-626 B. C.). 
Xisuthros, called also Hassis-Hadra (“pious and wise”), 1 represents the ten generations from 
the first man. The god Belus prophesies to him a vast rain flood, which shall begin on the 
fifteenth of the month Daisios. He builds a ship 3,000 feet long and 1,200 feet broad. 2 A 
voice says to him, “ enter the ship and shut the door.” He has taken with him specimens of 
all animals, birds, and reptiles, for which he has stored provisions. The flood lasts seven days 
and is drained off in seven days. When the rain ceases, he sends out first a dove and then a 
swallow, which return. The third time he sends out a raven which wades in the shallows and 
does not return. Meanwhile the ship of Xisuthros had grounded on an Armenian mountain 
named Nizir. He leaves it with his wife, his daughter, and a pilot, erects an altar and offers 
sacrifices. His ark was said to be preserved in the mountains of Armenia, and pieces of it 
smeared with bitumen were used as amulets. 


1 This name, which Professor Sayce writes Adrakhasis, occurs in another fragment of the Chaldean poem. See also 
George Smith, “Chaldean Genesis,” pp. 262-294. 

2 It has six stories and nine interior compartments. The old Chaldean poem is quoted by Professor Sayce, “The 
Higher Criticism and the Monuments,” pp. 107-113. 





■ ■■ 

i; cifXV?^! V b4L * %a,'<' r i»8r 


Buiupmc THE A*?K 




l.rt 


UJLi 












S 








. :' 


»W 


■ 


m 




mi 






m 


■' ■ 


mr-m 




. 






:J kM 




I*.« . 








,X^; r v‘: K 

: 


as 


‘‘i# 




v/.vtx 


vV', 














5i 


*#* 










£ 


,V 


• ■ 








V:?A 






ms 


ENTERrNO 


r M h 


ARK 








* 


NOAHS SACRIFICE. 


Ce/t. vnr 20 . 






i s r r: c < r c c f i^^.^JLiLLZ^.Zl2 •.:.. ■: 




















































































140 


THE SACRIFICE AXD THE PROMISE—DOMINION CONFERRED. 


4. But amid many curious resemblances it will be seen that in every instance the sacred 
narrative is quite incomparably superior in sobriety and spiritual meaning. It alone is purely 
monotheistic, and it avoids the monstrous polytheism and unworthy, incongrous elements in 
which the ancient mythologies are involved. The sacred writers do not pause for emotion or 
poetic description. They are intent on the moral lesson that God hates sin and saves the 
righteous. 

That there must be some connection between the Babylonian epic and the narrative of P 
and J is certain; but, though the Babylonian poem is of very great antiquity, it cannot be 
shown that the sacred writers have directly availed themselves of it. 


THE SACRIFICE AND THE PROMISE. 

(GENESIS VIII, 20 TO 22.) 

After leaving the ark with his family, and all the living things which had been saved, 
Noah built an altar — the first mentioned in Scripture — and offered burnt offerings of “every 
clean beast and of every clean fowl.” Yahveh smelled “the odor of satisfaction,” and said “to 
himself” that he would never again curse the ground because of man nor smite every living 
thing. The cogitation of man’s heart is indeed evil from his youth. But God would deal in 
other ways of retribution and deliverance with this original corruption and its developments, 
and till the end of time, days and seasons in their cycles of benevolence would still continue — 
seed-time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night. The Lord does not 
promise that sin shall ever escape punishment, but only that the earth shall not be again 
overwhelmed by an universal flood. Here again we find a resemblance in the old Chaldean 
epoch, in which Ea says to Bel: 


“Let the sinner bear his own sin ; 

May he not be cut off ! be merciful that he be not destroyed ! 

Instead of causing a deluge, let lions come and minish mankind. 

Let hyenas come . . . let there be a' famine 

Instead of causing a deluge, let the plague-god come and minish mankind.” 


CHAPTER IX. 

THE NOACHIAN COVENANT AND ITS SYMBOL. 

(GENESIS IX, 1 TO 17.) 

P. 

"Vf OW that the deluge was over, God — Elohim — blessed the sole human survivors of the 
A* drowned world, bade them be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, 1 and gave them the 
dominion of awe-inspiring superiority over every living thing. Now, too, for the first time, 
man is granted “every living creature” as well as the “green herb” for food; only he must not 
eat flesh with its soul, which is its blood. 2 We find the same prohibition strongly insisted 
on in the Levitic ordinances (Leviticus xvii, 10-14). Whatever sheds human blood, whether 


'This command has been already recorded (viii, 16-17). 

2 The blood is the nephesh, physical principle of life, not the ruach or spirit. Compare Virgil “ .Eneid,” ix, 349, 
“purpuream vomit itte animam This command specially forbade the brutal custom, prevalent till recent years in Abyssinia, 
of cutting steaks out of the living animal. Compare I. Samuel xiv, 32. It has had a immense and permanent influence on 
the Jewish race and was imposed even on the Gentiles at the dawn of Christianity (Acts xv, 20, 29). 




THE BOW OF PROMISE—SIN OF NOAH. 


141 


man or beast, must be put to death for violating the image of God in man. 1 Before the reign of 
law and justice Avas securely established it was most necessary to impress on man the inherent 
sanctity of human life, which many nations, both savage and civilized, have held so cheap. 
This simple covenant was required of man; and God on his part promised that there should 
never more be a flood to destroy the earth and appointed his boAV in the cloud as a sign of the 
eternal covenant between him and the earth. To this promise Isaiah alludes in the passage 
(liv, 8-9), “ In overflowing wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting 
kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of 
[‘the days of’] Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more 
go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee ” 
(Revised Version). 

Those avIio impugn the story of the rainbow on the ground that whenever there Avas rain 
and sun there must also have been rainbows raise a needless difficulty. The passage does not 
say that the rainbow was first created after the deluge, but only that it was then first made the 
sign of the new and blessed covenant. The Avord rendered “I have set my bow in the clouds” 
means literally “ I have given.” 

No more suitable sign that God has vouchsafed the promise of mercy could have been 
appointed than that lovely and radiant phantom of “ painted tears.” Even in the final book of 
the New Testament Ave find this emblem of eternal compassion in the “rainbow round about the 
throne in sight like unto an emerald ”; 2 and it is described as forming his aureole of angels 
which are sent on the messages of the Almighty. 3 Many nations have turned to the rainbow 
with instinctive joy and hope, and have connected it with the behests of heaven. To the 
Greeks it Avas the shining path, down which “ golden winged Iris, the daughter of Thaumas by 
Electra, daughter of Oceanus, descended AA r ith the compassionate mandates of Zeus”; and 
Homer also speaks of it as “ a portent,” though not always of peace. In the Scandinavian 
Sagas it is the bridge between heaven and earth. The course of so many centuries and 
millenniums has not in the least robbed it of sacred significance. 

THE SIN OF NOAH —OF HAM AND CANAAN. 

(GENESIS IX, IS TO 26.) 

J. 

The three sons of Noah in the order of their birth Avere Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 4 
These repeopled the earth; and the son of Ham was Canaan. It soon, alas! became too clear 
that “The device of man’s heart Avas evil from his youth,” and that sin born of the evil propen¬ 
sity would still hold SAvay in the freshly lustrated world. There Avas to be yet another tree of 
the knoAvledge of evil. For “Noah, the husbandman, began and planted a vineyard.” 5 The 
vine Avas in itself a precious and beautiful gift of God, and the fruit of the grape made, in its 
unfermented form, a delicious and wholesome beverage. Even in its fermented form, it would 
have been harmless, if it had not been perverted by the powers of evil for the frightful misery 
and age-long destruction of the human race. But under existing circumstances, as our greatest 
living statesman has said, “strong drink produces and has produced evils more deadly than Avar, 
famine, and pestilence combined.” The tempting opportunity fatally meets the susceptible 

1 So in Exodus xxi, 28, the ox which has gored a man must be killed, and as late as 1486 a boar which had killed a child 
was executed on the scaffold at Ypres. 

2 Revelation iv, 3. 3 Revelation x, 1. 

‘The order of birth is, however, uncertain. In Genesis x, 21, “Shem .... the brother of Japheth the elder” 

(King James and I,XX.), should, perhaps, be “ the elder brother of Japheth ” (Revised Version ; King James Version, margin). 
Josephus puts them in the order, Shem, Japheth, Ham. Shem is placed first in v, 32, vii, 13, ix, 18, x, 1; I. Chronicles i, 4. 

5 Such, though the epithet, “ the husbandman,” is surprising, seems to be the true translation. Literally, it is the “ man 
of the earth ” (ish ha-adamah). 



142 


EVILS OF INTEMPERANCE—SHAME AND INFAMY. 


disposition. The pleasurable instigation from without, united with the dangerous impulse 
from within, seduces and masters the human will, and thus the fruit of the vine is turned 
into a lethal agent which makes the god-like soul of man blighted and the abject slave of 
a dead chemical product. Under the influence of drink, man — created in the divine image, 
man with the sign of his redemption marked visibly upon his forehead — is smitten with 
the serpentine curse of degradation and becomes “earthly, sensual, devilish,” until at last he 
sinks to the worst depths of infamy. The moderate use of wine is nowhere decisively forbidden 
in Scripture. The temptation to excess in the East is far less intense and the examples of 
excess are far fewer than in Western and Northern regions. So far as wine was used in perfect 
moderation to promote the harmless mirth of feasts and make glad the heart of man there was 
no necessity for its prohibition. 1 The sin begins with the abuse, not with the temperate use; 
with the excess, not with the participation, except so far as the latter — under certain fatal 
conditions of heredity and of national unwisdom — conduces inevitably to the former. But 
even the moderate and unforbidden use of intoxicants may become perilous when considerations 
of greed, and appetite, and custom are given undisturbed predominance for the utter and whole¬ 
sale destruction of souls for which Christ died. Asceticism, self-torture, fasting, abstinence are 
not of themselves among the necessary requirements of pure religion and undefiled. The fruits 
of the spirit under the old covenant, as under the new, are love, joy, peace. But there are 
circumstances in which abstinence from every form of wine becomes an imperative duty for 
the tempted individual, as the only means by which he can retain the self-control which 
distinguishes between manhood and animalism. It may also become a counsel of mercy and 
perfection for thousands of the untempted who feel it a duty, by precept and example, to help 
and to save their miserable, perishing, and tempted brethren. 

The wide dissemination of the invention of fermented drink is shown by the fact that the 
root for the word “ wine ” is found in so many languages. Many nations have, under one form 
and another, worshiped 

“Bacchus, that first from out the purple grape 
Crushed the sweet poison of misused wine.” 

Yet, whether worshiped as Bacchus or as Osiris, the discoverer of intoxicants gave to the 
world the most potent of all the implements which “ the evil genii whose blessings are curses in 
disguise” have ever been able to employ for the damnation of human souls. And here, thus 
early in the world’s history, the peril which lay in this discovery is foreshadowed. In one line 
we read that Noah planted a vineyard; in the next that he drank of the wine and became 
drunken; in the next that the righteous patriarch, who had been saved from the overwhelming 
flood, lay uncovered in his tent, a spectacle of shame and infamy; in the next that his degrada¬ 
tion called forth all that was loathly in the vile and impure disposition of his grandson and his 
second son, and then that, as a consequence of this foul and hideous scene, a curse is laid on the 
whole family of man. The spectacle of a father’s shame would have awakened a blush of 
pity — a throb of anguish too deep for tears — in any mind of ordinary decency. In the base, 
corrupted mind of Ham — the type of all minds which exult in the unashamed self-revelation 
of human weakness, and make it a subject not of modest self-humiliation, hut of jibes and 
sneers — the pitiable scene only evoked his own radical worthlessness. Instead of covering the 
sin with holy compassion, which we ought all to do always, when no higher duty requires 
its exposure and its punishment, Ham went out and told his two brethren, evidently with 
mockery and malignant comment. Shem and Japheth were of nobler moral temperament and 
knew what holiness, and filial piety, and delicate dignity required. They took “the upper 
garment ” of their father, laid it on both their shoulders, and “ going backward with averted 

1 It may, however, be said that in not a few places it is discouraged and made a topic of most earnest warning: e. g., 
Proverbs xxiii, 29-35, xx, 1; Isaiah xxviii, 7 ; Hosea iv, 11 ; Joel i, 5 ; Ephesians v, 18 ; I. Corinthians vi, 10, etc. 



MALEDICTION AND BENEDICTION. 


143 


faces so that they did not see the nakedness of their father,” laid the robe over him, and over 
his sin and shame. 

Drunkenness was never a common vice in Palestine. We are are not told that our Lord, 
during his mortal life, once saw that spectacle of human beings in the shame of drunkenness 
which is so miserably and infamously common among us. Yet even the Jewish Rabbis, in 
their comments on these few verses, show us how entirely they realize the deep moral warning 
which lies in the terse and solemn narrative. 

“ When Noah awoke from his wine.” 1 Under these simple words lies all the agony of a 
conscience, startled out of its drunken slumber — he becomes conscious of the shaken torch and 
snaky tresses of that Erinnys of the dawn which avenges the crimes of the darkness. He 
knew what his younger son had done unto him. 2 How he knew this we are not told, nor is it 
essential to the narrative. On becoming aware of the shameful fact, Noah uttered in prophetic 
verse his deep malediction on Canaan : 

“Cursed be Canaan ; 

A servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.” 

No answer can be given to the question why the curse fell on Canaan especially, unless it 
be that Ham was punished in part by the curse upon his son, and that God visits “ the iniquity 
of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate him.” 
It must not, however, be supposed that, as in the proverb quoted and repudiated by Ezekiel, 
“ The fathers did eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth were set on edge.” Each soul, we 
may be sure, bore its own iniquity, and the soul that sinneth “ it shall die.” The people of 
Canaan were looked upon by the Israelites as prodigies of revolting wickedness. It seemed 
natural that on them the curse should have fallen, and it did fall with exceptional ruin on this 
contaminated race. They were in great measure extirpated; but the remnant of them were 
enslaved, partly by the descendants of Shem in the person of the Israelites, and partly by the 
descendants of Japheth in the islands and coasts of Asia Minor. As a matter of fact, the 
Canaanites were accursed both in their character — which was a shameful mixture of lust and 
cruelty — and in their religion, which reeked with degrading profligacy and atrocious rites in 
the worship of obscene Baalim. 

There follows a blessing on the eldest son, Shem, and the youngest, Japheth. Shem is 
blessed through his covenant God. 3 

“ Blessed be Yahveh, the God of Shem; 

And let Canaan be his servant.” 

Here the blessing of Shem lies mainly in the fact that his descendants are the people and 
the worshipers of Yahveh. The blessing on Japheth is connected with a play upon his name: 4 

“God enlai’ge Japheth, 

And let him dwell in the tents of Shem ; 

And let Canaan be his [or their] servant.” 

As it is not perfectly clear how Japheth “dwelt in the tents of Shem,” some critics — as, 
for instance, Gesenius and Schrader — here gave to the word Shem the sense of “name” or 
“fame”—“Let him dwell in renowned tents.” Probably, however, the allusion is to the 
friendly commerce and intercourse between the descendants of the two races. A deeper 

1 Yayin means both “ wine ” and “ intoxication.” I. Samuel i, 14, xxv, 37. 

2 As the curse was pronounced on Canaan, the son of Ham, and no curse is pronounced on Ham himself, there is an 
unsolved difficulty here. In verse 22, some versions read “ Ham and Canaan saw.” Others substitute Ham for Canaan in the 
curse (verses 25-27), or read “ Ham, the father of Canaan,” or in this verse (24) render “his younger son” by “grandson.” 
None of these expedients are tenable, but the difficulty remains. 

3 Compare Deuteronomy xxxiii, 20; Exodus xix, 5. 

4 May Elohim enlarge ( yaphet ) Japheth ( yepheth ). Yepheth is the niphil form of pathah, “to open or extend.” 



144 


ETHNOLOGICAL AND RACIAL DIVISIONS OF MANKIND. 


meaning may be read into it in the light of such prophecies as that of Isaiah : 1 “And the 
Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising .... the 
abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto 
thee.” 2 

The chapter ends with one of the chronological notices furnished by the Priestly writer 
that Noah lived 350 years after the flood, and died at the age of 950. Burckhardt says that, 
“ The grave of the prophet Noah is still shown at the little village of Kerak, in the region of 
the Lebanon.” 3 


CHAPTER X. 


THE TABLE OF THE NATIONS . 4 


B EFORE drawing out the table of national affinity recorded in this chapter, a few remarks 
will give a clearer notion of its meaning and contents. 

i. It is often called an ethnological table. This, however, is hardly correct. Many of the 
names are not those of persons but those of towns, like Sidon; or districts and countries, like 
Canaan and Mizraim; or peoples and tribes, like Ludim, Jebusites, etc. 

ii. Nor is it, strictly speaking, an attempt at complete ethnography. It in no sense 
contains an exhaustive table even of the nations known to the Israelites. For instance, neither 
Arabians nor Persians are definitely named, nor Moabites, Edomites, Ishmaelites, nor does it 
mention people like the old Rephaim, Zuzim, Anakim, Emim, nor even the Amalekites — all of 
which tribes may have practically disappeared by the date when it was drawn up. That it 
should mention nations like the Hindoos, the Nigritian races, the Chinese, the North American 
Indians, and other nations more or less unknown to the Hebrews, was not to have been 
expected. But, although it mainly deals with peoples which inhabited the countries lying 
round the Mediterranean basin and northward to the Euxine, and eastward to the Caspian, and 
southward to the Persian Gulf, it was doubtless meant to counteract the Jewish tendency to 
bigoted particularism. It served to show that God is the God of all mankind — not only of the 
chosen people. It proved that, in the words of Saint Peter, “ God is no respecter of persons, 
but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him,” and 

that, in the words of Saint Paul, “ He hath made of one all nations of men.If 

haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he is not far from each one of us,” since, 
as the Greek poets had said, whom the Apostle of the Gentiles quotes with approval, “ in him 
we live, and move, and have our being,” and “ we are also his offspring.” 

iii. The threefold division of the races of man has been very prominent. In a Babylonian 
legend Xisuthros had three sons whom the Sibylline oracles called Kronos, Titan, Japetos; and 
in the Persian legend Feridun has three sons Airy a, Tura, Cairima. Some modern philologists 
have also believed in three main divisions of the human race — the Aryan family, the Semitic, 
and the Turanian. The latter name has, however, an incorrect generalization for multitudes of 
scattered tribes and nations who can only be called Allopliylian. 

iv. The division of mankind here is certainly not by colors, as was the Egyptian, who 
separated the races of man into yellow (Amu), white ( Temchu ), and black ( Nahasi ). 

v. Nor can much be inferred from the meaning of the designations. Shem means 
“ name,” i. e., renown. It points to the noblest race, just as the Aryans, too, called themselves 

1 Isaiah lx, 3, 5. 2 Compare Genesis xxii, 18; Ephesians iii, 6. 3 “ Travels,” I, 42; Kalisch, p. 231. 

* In this chapter, verses 1-7, 20, 22, 24, 31, 32 are supposed to belong to P and the rest to J. 




THE HOMES OF THE DESCENDANTS OF NOAH. 


145 


for the word arya, “noble.” Ham seems rather to mean “hot,” than to be related to the 
Egyptian Qemet, “black,” a name given to Egypt from the predominant color of its soil. 
What Japheth means is uncertain, since the play on words in ix, 27, is not an etymology. 
Shem, the ancestor of the Hebrews, is represented as the eldest, and Ham as the second. The 
Israelites came into contact with the Hamitic races and their culture before they had any close 
intercourse with the descendants of Japheth. 

vi. It seems clear that the table is founded mainly on geographical, rather than on purely 
ethnic, facts. Japheth represents the Northern and Western belt of nations, which lie for 
the most part north of the Southern Iduric range—the highlands of Asia Minor, Armenia, and 
Media — except Lud and Arphaxad. The descendants of Ham occupy the southern belt, 
including parts of Africa, Arabia, and Egypt. The descendants of Shem occupy the central 
zone of civilization, including Assyria, Aram, Northern Mesopotamia, and Syria. There are, 
however, some cross divisions, depending on political or historic circumstances of migrations 
and conquests, so that some names — e. g., Havilah and Sheba — occur twice over. 

“ This chapter,” says Professor Sayce, “ is not an ethnological table; it is not concerned 
with races, but with geography, arranged genealogically in accordance with Semitic idiom. 
Thus, when we are told that Sidon was ‘ the firstborn of Canaan,’ we are to understand that it 
was the first of Phoenician cities. ‘ In this chapter ’ we are not to look for a scientific division 
of mankind into their several races. . . . All the tribes and nations mentioned belonged 

to the white race, which is, however, distinguished into several varieties. ... In Biblical 
times, these various sub-races were mingled together in that square of the earth’s surface which 
constituted the known world to the civilized peoples of the East. ... It was the square 
which has witnessed the rise and growth of the civilization which mainly has an interest for 
us. . . . This square is divided into three zones — a Northern, a Central, and a Southern. 

The Northern zone is represented by Japheth, the central by Shem, and the Southern by Ham. 
In one direction, however, along the coast of Palestine, Egyptian conquest caused the Southern 
zone to be extended into the zone of the center.” 1 

vii. Since seventy of the descendants of Noah are mentioned, the Jews held that there 
were seventy nations of the world. 

viii. The only passages which break the continuity of the table are the episode of Nimrod 
(verses 8-12), on which I will speak later; and the remark (verse 25) that Eber, the son of 
Salah, the son of Arphaxad, had two sons, Peleg and Joktan, and that Peleg, “ division,” was 
so called because “ in his days the earth was divided.” Since Salah means “ propagation,” and 
Peleg “divisions,” some suppose the name to be mythical. What is meant by the “division” of 
the earth in the days of Peleg is uncertain; it may allude to the diffusion of population or 
the settlement of natural boundaries. 2 3 Eber means “ he who crosses over,” and the Hebrews 
(Genesis xiv, 13) were called “ crossers over ” because they had been originally a transeuphratic 
tribe. It is clear that this genealogical incident in the table of nations has not been influenced 
by any considerations of vanity, or the Jews would not have represented themselves as a mere 
sub-tribe in the family of the third sou of Shem. 

THE EPISODE OF NIMROD. 3 
(GENESIS X, 8 TO 12.) 

J. 

These verses are probably introduced from some other source into the table of nations. 
Nimrod, the son of Cush, is described as “ a mighty man (or gibbor or ‘ hero ’) on the earth,” 

1 “ The Higher Criticism and the Monuments,” pp. 119-148 ; “ Races of the Old Testament,” pp. 41, ff. 

2 Peleg may also mean “water course,” and some explain the allusion by “ the first cuttings of the canals which are 
found in such numbers between the Tigris and the Euphrates.” 

3 Wellhausen attributes this episode to the Yahvist; Sayce to the Elohist. There is much uncertainty about its origin. 



146 


STORY OF NIMROD—BUILDING OF BABEL. 


and as so eminent for prowess as a huntsman that the proverb said, “ like Nimrod, the mighty 
hunter before the Lord.” 1 

From his being described as a son of Cush, and yet as a founder of Nineveh, some have 
supposed that, although the Assyrians and Babylonians spoke a Semitic language, their king¬ 
dom had been founded by a hero of the race of Ham, who pushed his conquest far into the 
region of Shem ; but several modern critics and Assyriologists of high repute — among whom 
may be reckoned Schrader — think that the name Cush has led to a confusion between the 
father of Nimrod, and a Babylonian tribe with a similar name. This is, however, highly 
uncertain, and there seemed to have been both Assyrian and South Asiatic Cushites of kindred 
families. The government and culture of Babylonia appear to have been founded by a non- 
Semitic race, called Accadians and Sumerians, and the text preserves a true tradition of the fact 
that Assyria was originally a dependency of Babylon. Thus Nimrod founded Babylon, Erech 
(perhaps Ptolemy’s Orchoe, now Warka, near the mound El-Assagah), Accad (Tel Nimroud), 
and Calueli (Ctesiphon) in the land of Shinar, before he founded a still vaster world-empire by 
carrying his victorious arms northward, and founding the four Assyrian States of Nineveh 
Rehoboth Ir, Calah (now Kalah Shergat), and Resen (Nimroud, between Kalali Sliergat and 
Kuyunjik). There is no certain derivation of the name Nimrod, nor has any trace of him been 
discovered in Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions, unless, with the late Mr. George Smith, we 
identify him with the legendary Izdubar; but Mr. Pinches seems to have proved that this view 
is no longer tenable. 2 The wild guesses of commentators connect him with Ninus, Orion, 
and other mythic heroes. The Hebrews connected his name with mar ad k “ to revolt,” and the 
Haggadah was very busy with his supposed evil deeds. He is identified by Josephus with the 
builder of Babel. Rabbinnic legends bring him down to the time of Abram, and, since Ur 
means “fire,” they say that he flung Abram into the fire for not worshiping his idols, but that 
the patriarch was miraculously preserved. These stories have been transferred to the “Koran.” 


CHAPTER XI. 

THE TOWER OF BABEL AND THE DISPERSION. 

(GENESIS XI, 1 TO 9.) 

J. 

U P to this time the whole earth was of one language — “lip” — and one speech — “of 
words one” — and as the wandering tribes of men journeyed 3 eastward 4 they found a 
valley-plain — biqali — in the land of Shinar — Babylonian-Assyrian Sumer, i. e., Southern 
Babylonia — which, from its advantageous position, tempted them to settle there. And they 
said to one another, “Come, let us bake bricks, 5 and burn them thoroughly.” They smeared 
the bricks with bitumen, which is abundant in the neighborhood, and proposed to build a very 
lofty tower. 6 “ Let us make us a name,” 7 they said, “for Ave may perhaps be scattered over the 

1 Literally, before the face of Yahveh. 

2 George Smith, “ Chaldean Account of the Genesis,” pp. 167-262; “ Records of the Past,” vii, 133-149, id. v (new series), 
p. xiii. 

3 The word implies “ struck their tents,” for they were as yet Nomads. 

4 Not “ from the East” (as in King James Version), but “ East” (Revised Version). 

5 The “ bricks ” ( I’bkenah ), so-called from their whiteness. 

6 “ AVitli its top in the heavens ” —an eastern hyperbole. Compare Deuteronomy i, 28, ix, 1 ; Daniel iv, 17. 

7 Shem — some take it to mean a monument. Compare II. Samuel viii, 13. 





Thubal J'gFt 


TliojTfif'r m a^— 
(AKME MANS);.fa Jgsrf % 


«HSS 


CWrhcm ish 


KiitiiiV 


s. /*MpKalne} 


'amaseus 


Dumah 


NoiAmmonV 
^ \thebians', 

dSyene 


Shebah 


btab 




\Meroe 


^ s 

■•v : 1 


Franklin Co -, Engrs., Chi, 


THE WORLD AS KNOWN TO THE HEBREWS 


ACCORDING TO THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT 


SONS OP JAPHET 


SONS OF HAM 

L_JJJ 


SONS OF SHEM 
land EBER, 


with his descendents the 
Hebrews, Ishm aelites 
and Edomites. 


Extent of the ancient 1 


Assyrian Empire. 




















































































































































CONFUSION OF TONGUES—MANKIND DISPERSED —BABEL DESTROYED. 


147 


earth.” But Yahveh came down to see the city and tower, which the children of men built, 
and said, “ Behold, they are one people and have one language, and, if left unrestrained, they 
will be debarred from nothing. Come, let us go down and confound their language, that 
they may not understand one another’s speech.” So Yahveh scattered them, and they ceased 
to build, the city which was therefore called Babel — “confusion”—since Yahveh had there 
confounded the language of all the earth and scattered them abroad. 

In verse 7, besides the bold phrase, we have again the plural “ Go to, let us go down,” on 
which I have already commented on Genesis i, 26. I still regard the expression as a “ plural of 
excellence ”; but it should be noted that neither the Rabbis nor the great Jewish commentators 
knew or accepted this explanation. In an interesting discussion between Rabbis and Christians 1 
the Christians urge these plurals in proof of the Trinity. The answer of Rabbi Johannan 
was that God usually does nothing without consulting the supernal family, as in Daniel iv, 
17 : to which, however, .,we may oppose Isaiah xl, 12-14. Rav Jehuda said that God called 
ministering angels into existence to consult them. 

Such is the short and naively anthropomorphic narrative in which the Yahvist touches 
incidentally on many great truths. The story of Babel is mentioned here alone in Scripture. 
It is meant to indicate that God did not intend men to remain as one undivided people using 
one form of speech. The divisions of mankind, alike by natural barriers of seas, rivers, and 
mountains, and by the growth of dialects and estranging customs, is part of the divine ordinance 
for the race. Although God has made all men of one, the separation of races tends to produce 
a rich variety and to give ample scope for the development of various endowments. It also 
saves man from the crushing burden of ambitious and overweening tyrannies. It tends to stir 
up the sluggish waves of human life, which otherwise might stagnate into universal putres¬ 
cence. It breaks up the indolent immobility of custom. It stimulates every form of inquiry 
and of progress. It prevents men from exhausting the capabilities of limited areas by enabling 
them to avail themselves of the unlimited treasures and resources of the earth on which they 
dwell. It was, therefore, out of the highest beneficence that Yahveh defeated the little plans of 
men. 

Another of the divine purposes is here intimated. It was to restrain the towering arro¬ 
gance of mankind, lest, if they formed hut a single race under some impious tyrant, they might 
altogether forget God, and rush into every extreme of impiety, relying on their own strength 
and worshiping their own inventions. A Babylonian conqueror might be tempted to say in his 
heart, “ I will ascend up to heaven; above the stars of God, will I erect my throne,” 2 but 
God’s answer to him would be the ignominious obliteration of his short-lived plans by death — 
“ but thou descendest into the grave, and into the deepest pit.” We find an echo of the same 
thought in Jeremiah: “ I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth 
that which he hath swallowed up, and the nations shall not flow together any more unto him: 
yea, the wall of Babylon shall fall.” 3 

To inculcate these lessons, the sacred writer adopts and modifies an ancient tradition. 
Although he does not here mention Nimrod, yet earliest Jewish legends attribute the attempt to 
found a world-empire to the mighty hunter whom they regarded as a rebel and a despot. 
Their imagination had been struck and haunted by the huge extent of Babylon, and the 
colossal towers of the temples of Bel-Merodach, both in that city and at Birs Nimroud. The 
latter, even in its fire-scatlied ruins, excites the astonishment of travelers by its strength and 
vast extent. Even among the Babylonians there seems to have been a sense that there was 
something impious in the construction of buildings so gigantic. 

The legend of its destruction by divine interposition — by storms of lightning — would 
take all the deeper root from the fact that even in ancient days the temple had been liable to 

1 Sanhedrim, 38 b. 

12 


2 Isaiah xiv, 13. 


3 Jeremiah li, 44. 



148 


LOCATION OF BABEL —ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY. 


severe vicissitudes. 1 In later times “ travelers saw in the vitrified bricks of the ruined tower, 
traces of the lightning, which had punished the pride of its builders.” 

Though no Babylonian inscription tells the story of the tower of Babel, Mr. George Smith 
has discovered, on the fragments of a tablet, allusions to a “ holy mount mingled in Babylon by 
small and great,” and how “ the God in anger destroyed the secret designs of the builders,” and 
“ made strange their counsels ” and scattered them. 2 The site of the great temple of Bel-Mero- 
dach in Babylon long retained the old Sumerian name of El Saggil, “ the house of the lofty 
head,” which towered over the great city, visible from afar. With the splendor of the tower 
was connected the immense size of the city which naturally tempted the victorious despots of 
Assyria to dreams of a world-affrighting empire, so that even Sargon, after the conquest of Syria 
“ appointed that all places should form a single kingdom.” The wise diffusion of Semitic 
dialects made the dream seem feasible, and the promotion of the use of one language has always 
been the aim of tyrants. But it is not often entirely successful, and the “various races” 
which, as Berosus says, were gathered in Babylon told against it. The many languages spoken 
by representatives of conquered and immigrating races in Babylon made it natural to believe 
that it was the unfinished city which had been the scene of that confusion of tongues, when the 
original unity of speech among the descendants of Noah, after the deluge, was first confounded 
into mutually unintelligible languages. 

For this reason the writer sees significance in the assonance of the name “ Babel ” with 
balbel, to confound, while at the same time the form of the story (verses 4, 5) seems to recognize 
the other derivation of the name from Bab-iht, “ The gate of the god.” 

In this passage, as throughout the Bible, our one concern is to seize the moral and spiritual 
lessons, whether conveyed in the forms of tradition, of myth, or of parable. To take this story 
literally would be — as was said by St. Gregory of Nyssa, “The theologian,” fifteen centuries 
ago—“Jewish babblement and folly.” To use the legend as decisive authority on questions 
concerning the origin of languages is to take the things of science and give them to Scripture. 
If the question of the origin of languages can ever be solved at all, it will only be by scientific 
inquiry. The notion — idly deduced from this passage — that Hebrew was the primitive 
language is now absolutely exploded, and cannot he held by anyone capable of understanding 
even the elements of philology. Still more certain it is that the divergence of languages and 
dialects, as far back as we can trace it on the oldest monuments of the human race, was not the 
result of a momentary interposition — which, indeed, is not asserted by the writer — but arose 
from the slow working of age-long laws. 

THE GENERATIONS FROM NOAH TO ADAM. 

MAINLY P. 

(GENESIS XI, 10 TO 32.) 

The following genealogy records all that we know of the history of 390 years according to 
the Hebrew, 1040 years according to the Samaritan, and 1270 according to the Septuagint. 
The genealogy is constructed on exactly the same principles as that given by the Priestlv writer 
in chapter v. 

How little we can be sure of the numbers may be seen from the interpolation of the name 
Canaan by the Septuagint, and the variations tabulated below, which are clearly due to inten¬ 
tional manipulation. In addition to this the readings of the Septuagint are often variant and 
uncertain : 

1 It was restored by Nebuchadnezzar. For a modern description see Layard, “ Nineveh and Babylon,” pp. 484-505. 

2 See Sayce, “The Higher Criticism and the Monuments,” pp. 153-157; George Smith, “Chaldean Genesis,” ed. Sayce, 
pp. 120, ff.; but nothing is said of the confusion of tongues. 



THE GENERATIONS FROM NOAH TO ABRAM. 


149 



HEBREW. 

SAMARITAN. 

SEPTUAGINT. 


Before 
birth of 
son. 

Rest of 
life. 

Total. 

Before 
birth of 
son. 

Rest of 
life. 

Total. 

Before 
birth of 
son. 

Rest of 
life. 

Total. 

Shem. 

100 

500 

600 

100 

500 

600 

100 

500 

600 

Arphaxad . 

35 

403 

438 

135 

303 

438 

135 

400 

535 

Canaan. 







130 

330 

460 

Salah. 

30 

403 

433 

130 

303 

433 

130 

330 

460 

Eber. 

34 

430 

464 

134 

270 

404 

134 

270 

404 

Peleg. . 

30 

209 

239 

130 

109 

239 

130 

209 

339 

Reu. 

32 

207 

239 

132 

107 

239 

132 

207 

339 

Serug. 

30 

200 

230 

| 130 

100 

230 

130 

200 

330 

Nahor. 

29 

119 

148 

79 

69 

148 

179 

125 

304 

Terah . 

70 

135 

205 

70 

75 

145 

70 

135 

205 

Total. 

390 



1040 



1270 




The object of the changes introduced by the Septuagint is easily discernible. (1) The Greek 
translators desired to make ten generations from Shem to Terah by inserting the name Canaan, 
which is also inserted in Luke iii, 36, and (2) to extend the number of years required for the 
ten generations. How entirely artificial is the number of years thus stated appears at once 
from the fact that the three numbers which belong to Salah are transferred without any change 
to Canaan. The insertion is clearly wrong, for Abram, like Noah, is evidently meant to be 
in the tenth generation. The Samaritan variations are also systematic. This version increases 
the number of years before the birth of the first son, except in the case of Terah, and decreases 
the number of years lived by each patriarch after the birth of the first son except in the case of 
Shem. In the third column it agrees with the Hebrew, except in the cases of Eber and Terah. 
All three texts are in accord as regards Shem, but the Septuagint alone gives the years of 
Canaan. The lists mark a gradual diminution in the length of human life. 

It was the custom of the Hebrew genealogists to throw their lists into equal numbers. 
Thus the genealogy of Joseph in Saint Matthew is arranged in groups of fourteen, and there 
are ten generations from Adam to Noah in Genesis v, 3-32. 

In this genealogy, as in the former, the name seems sometimes to represent districts oh 
towns, with the tribes which inhabited them, rather than individuals. Arphaxad, Reu, and 
Serug seem to be names which represent places, although their identification is far from certain. 
Arphaxad (x, 22) is identified by some critics with the district of the Karduchi, which Ptolemy 
calls Arrapachitis; Reu with Rages in Media, or Edessa, or Rughwa in Arabia, or with Ruua 
mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser III., as a town in South Babylonia; Serug with the blooming 
district of Sarug in North Mesopotamia. But these identifications scarcely arise above the 
dignity of dubious guesses, nor is any further light to be obtained for the names. Salah is 
connected with a word for “shoot,” in Canticles 1 iv, 13. Eber “one who crosses over”; 2 Peleg, 
“division”; Reu, “friendship”; Serug, “intertwining”; Nahor, “earnest struggle”; Terah, 
“ wandering ”; Abram, “ high father.” 

So little is certain about these questions that Bunsen supposed these names merely to 
indicate the chief resting places of the Hebrew branch of the Semitic tribes from Arphaxad to 
Northwestern Mesopotamia, and the numbers to represent the years of their abode in those 
regions. 

Only one thing is deducible from this genealogy, and the uncertainties by which it is 
surrounded; namely, that, for ten generations after the flood, from Shem to Terah, the Hebrews 


Song of Solomon. 


2 Joshua xxiv, 2,14. 








































150 


THE GENEALOGY OF TER AH. 


had no glimmer of definite tradition respecting the lives of their ancestors. Their history 
began with the migration of Terah from Haran to Ur, and of Abram from Ur to Canaan. 

THE GENEALOGY OF TERAH. 

We now come to the last prelude to that long period of Hebrew history which begins with 
Abram. It is prefaced by a brief genealogy to show his immediate relations. 

TERAH. 


Nahor—Milcah. Haran. 

Bethuel, and seven Died in Ur Kasdim. 

other sons. 


Laban — Rebecca. Milcah — Iscah. 

Lot 

I 

Ammon 
and 
Moab. 

When we are introduced to Terah, he is living at Ur of the Chaldees—Ur Kasdim — 
where his third son, Haran, has already pre-deceased his father. This is the first recorded 
instance, except the murder of Abel, of the natural death of a son before his father. It is for 
this reason that attention is specially called to the fact. But Haran, before his death, had 
become the father of a son, Lot, of whom the subsequent history will have so much to tell, and 
of two daughters, Milcah and Iscah. 

Speculation has been busy with the names. “ Milcah,” says Professor Sayce, “ is the 
Babylonian Milcat or ‘queen.’ It may be that in the curious addition ‘and the father of Iscah ’ 
we have a marginal gloss, which indicates acquaintance on the part of the writer with cuneiform 
literature. Iscah is not only not mentioned again, but the name is without an etymology. 
But in the cuneiform syllabary the same character may be read indifferently mil and is; and 
quite recently the first decipherer of the Tel el-Amarna tablets read is-ku, instead of mil-ku, 

‘ king,’ in a proper name. What has occurred in the nineteenth century may easily have 
occurred before, and it is therefore quite possible that Iscah may owe her existence to an error 
in reading a cuneiform character.” 1 Iscah is certainly mentioned in an unusual way, and it is 
strange that there should be no further allusion to her, whereas Milcah, by marriage with her 
uncle Nahor, became the mother of eight sons. We are not told who is the mother of Sarai. 
She is called “the daughter-in-law of Terah”; but as she was also his daughter, 2 some have 
supposed that she is identical with Iscah, 3 and that daughter in Genesis xx, 12, means grand¬ 
daughter. This is the view of Josephus, the Targum of Jonathan, the Talmudists, of Ephraem 
Syrus, and of Saint Jerome. But the view is untenable; for, since Sarai was only ten years 
younger than Abram 4 she could hardly have been the daughter of his younger brother. 
Ewald conjectures that Iscah became the wife of Lot. The derivation of Sarai is doubtful; 
Sarah means “princess.” 5 

Since it is at Ur Kasdim — “ Ur of the Chaldees”—that we find the first clear traces of 
the family of Abram, great interest attaches to the identification of the site. Kasdim is the 

1 Sayce, “ The Higher Criticism and the Monuments,” p. 159. 2 Genesis xx, 12. 

3 “ Iscah ” is another name for Sarai, because she spoke intuitively by the Holy Spirit (from Sakah “to perceive”). 

See Genesis xxi, 12; Megillah, xxx, 14a. 4 xvii, 17. 

5 Gesenius makes Sarai equivalent to “ nobleness”; Delitzscli and Ewald take it to mean “quarrelsome.” 


Abram — Sarai. 

I 

Isaac. 







THE EMIGRATION FROM UR TO IIARAM. 


151 


name by which the Hebrews called the Babylonians, but which they themselves never used. 
The word Chaldee — which is from the tribe Kalda to which Merodacli Baladan, and perhaps 
Nebuchadnezzar himself, belonged—lias no connection with the word. Its origin is unknown, 
though it may be from the Assyrian Kasidu “ conqueror,” or from Ivassi, an old name by 
which the Babylonians were known. 1 

From the fact that“ Ur ”means “lire” in Hebrew arose the legend (already alluded to) 
that Abram had been saved from the burning fiery furnace into which lie was thrown by Nimrod 
for refusing to worship his idols. But the word is the Babylonian Ur, Uru, or “ city ” of the 
cuneiform text. And the site is now represented by the mound of Mugheir and Warka, on the 
western bank of the Euphrates, which had a famous temple of the Moon-god. 2 The Jews 
believed Ur to be Edessa which they, therefore, called Orcastun, a corruption of Ur Kasdim. 

Terah, accompanied by his eldest son Abram, 3 his grandson Lot, and Sarai, who was at 
once his daughter and daughter-in-law, left Ur Kasdim to go into the land of Canaan. It is 
clear that his second son Nalior, with his family, must also have accompanied them for they are 
found settled in Haran in the next generation. 4 They are not here mentioned because their 
former relations with the family of Abram were not always friendly, and because they did not 
share in the final migration to Canaan. 

What was the cause of Terah’s migration? We are not told. Some find it in the death of 
his son Haran; others in religious disputes; others again in the necessity which arose from the 
growth of population, and the failure of sufficient nourishment for ever-increasing flocks and 
herds. No hint is given that Terah had received any divine intimation on the subject, such as 
was subsequently given to Abram, whose faith in obeying it, and “going forth, not knowing 
whither he went” 5 made him “ the father of missionaries.” At first, however, the emigrants— 
on whose fortunes were to depend, in God’s providence, the future religious destinies of the 
world — did not get as far as their ultimate destination, the Land of Canaan. “They came to 
Haran, and dwelt there.” 

We are not told what caused them to stop on their way. It is probable that Abram’s 
impressions as to the will of God were still dim. The providence of God is everlasting, as well 
as unresting. All things were being prepared for the time prescribed by him to whom alone 
the times and seasons are manifest. 

Haran is unquestionably the Carrhse of the ancients. 6 It is on the river Balissus — Belik 
— twenty miles southeast of Edessa. The name means “the dry” or “parched,” in Accadian, 
“ a road ” — and the treeless unwatered plain might seem to offer few attractions. Its condition 
may, however, have been very different in past ages, and it was an important commercial center 
to which converged the great caravan routes to Nisibis, to Babylon, and to Syria, for which 
reason Alexander the Great occupied it with a Macedonian colony. 7 It was celebrated for the 
worship of the Moon-goddess, and its ruins are still visited by pilgrims from its connection with 
the history of the great patriarch. It was at Haran that Abram received a distinct and final 
intimation that he was to leave his country, and the place of his birth, and his father’s house, 
and go into the unknown land of which God should tell him. 8 He had, however, received 
a previous intimation while he lived at Ur. Such at least is the view of Saint Stephen, who, in 
his speech, says “the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopo¬ 
tamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said, ‘ Get thee out of thy land.’ . . . Then came he 

1 Sayce, “The Higher Criticism and the Monuments,” p. 158. 

2 Sayce, “The Higher Criticism and the Monuments,” p. 158. The identification is, however, disputed. See Kalisch, 

pp. 292-293. Mugheir means “mother of bitumen.” 

s Abram ‘ ‘ the father is lofty” ; compare Abiram and the Assyrian Abaramu. 4 Genesis xxiv, 10, xxvii, 43. 

5 Hebrews xi, 8. 6 Professor Sayce calls it “ the key of the highway from the East to the West.” 

7 See references to Haran in II. Kings xix, 12; Isaiah xxxvii, 12 ; Ezekiel xxvii, 23. 

8 Genesis xii, 1; Acts vii, 2-4. 



152 


THE CALL OF ABRAM—HIS SUBLIME FAITH. 


out of the land of the Chaldeans [Ur Kasdim] and dwelt in Haran ; and from thence, when 
his father was dead, God removed him into this land where ye now dwell.” 1 In these details 
Saint Stephen was no doubt adopting the ordinary Jewish tradition. The statement, however, 
that Abram did not leave Haran till Terah was dead does not agree with the data here given.’ 
For the writer tells us that Terah, before he died in Haran, attained the age of 205 years. His 
death is only here mentioned, because at this point he disappears from the sacred page. But 
since Terah was only seventy years old when Abram was born, and Abram was seventy-five 
when he left Haran, 3 it is clear that Terah must have lived sixty years after Abram’s departure. 
He must have survived not only till the birth and circumcision of Ishmael, 4 but must even have 
lived until Isaac, the son of the promise, was thirty-five years old. 5 It must be remembered that 
he was not left in loneliness. If the families of Abram and of his dead son Haran left him, the 
numerous descendants of Xahor were still around him and were prospering in their new home. 

“But Sarai was barren; she had no child.” 6 That was for many years to come the 
tragedy of Abram’s life. In the East it is regarded as a very real tragedy, and to Abram it 
must have been intensified by the necessary temptation to regard as delusions the immense 
hopes for the future of his race, which he had received from divine intimations. Well might 
he cry to God, “ Oh, that Ishmael might live before thee!” when he had already attained the 
age of 100 years, and still found himself without a legitimate heir. But in God’s due time 
“the child of the promise” was marvelously born, to become the ancestor, in direct line, of him 
who was the Son of God, the Savior of the world. 

And meanwhile Abram listened to that divine voice which in the depths of his being 
said to him, “Follow me,” and his faith became to him, for many a long year, “the substance 
of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” He was “ the father of missionaries,” 
and the hero of faith, because, having been thereto called by God, he “ obeyed and went out, 
not knowing whither he went,” and “ by faith sojourned in tents as in a strange country,” 
looking for “the city which hath the foundations, of which the builder and maker is God.” 7 
“Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called 
the friend of God.” 8 

At this point, then, we close the meager record of prehistoric ages. From this epoch 
through the varying phases of divine revelation we are called to watch more closely and 
consecutively that “ path of the just,” which is “ as the shining light,” shining “ more and 
more unto the perfect day.” 

'Acts vii, 2-4. 2 But Saint Stephen may very possibly have followed the text of the LXX., which alters 205 in 

Genesis xi, 32, into 145, as does Philo, ‘‘De Migr. Abr.,” p. 414. Josephus, “Antiquities” I, vii, 2, quotes from Nicholas of 

Damascus the legend that Abraham conquered Damascus and reigned there. He says there was still a village near Damascus 

called “ The Habitation of Abraham.” 3 Genesis xii, 4. 4 Genesis xvi, 16, xvii, 25. 5 Genesis xxi, 5. 

6 This positive and negative statement of the same fact for purposes of emphasis is characteristic of archaic and Eastern 
languages. Compare Genesis xlii, 2, “ That we may live, and not die.” So, too, in Isaiah xxxviii, 1 ; Judges xiii, 2. 

7 Hebrews xi, 8-10. 8 James ii, 23. 









BOOK III 


FROM THE CALL OF ABRAHAM TO THE BONDAGE OF ISRAEL. 


BY 

Rev. Elmer H. Capen, D. D. 

PRESIDENT TUFT’S COLLEGE, 


SOMERVILLE, MASS. 
































BOOK III. 


FROM THE CALL OF ABRAHAM TO THE BONDAGE OF ISRAEL. 


CHAPTER I. 

ABRAHAM-HIS BIRTH AND TRAINING. 

YX7E come now to some account of Abraham, who is the grandest historical representative of 
* * the patriarchal world. He was the son of Terah, of whom there is scarcely more than a 
bare mention in the Scriptures. He was born in Ur or Hur. This was a city of Chaldea, 
situated on the right bank of the Euphrates at the point where the river at that time emptied 
into the sea. In other words, it was a seaport town, and there is abundant evidence that its 
shipping was of considerable importance, and that by means of it Chaldea had important inter¬ 
course with Ethiopia and other distant parts of the ancient world. It is probable, however, that 
the name was applied, not only to the town, but to a considerable portion of the territory 
surrounding it. Nor is it probable from the Scripture narrative that Terah dwelt within the 
limits of the city proper, unless he sought the protection of the city walls at night. It is 
altogether probable that the business of Terah, like that of Abraham after him, was pastoral. 
Nor is it unlikely that the growth of population, in and around Ur, the pressure of people 
on the lands of that region adapted to grazing and tillage, constituted the first motive to 
migration. Seemingly he had heard of a country far to the westward that was fertile and 
better suited to liis occupation. 

The men who had visited distant parts, by sea or land, the caravans that had come up 
through Palestine from the Mediterranean coast, would be likely to bring such reports. These 
accounts appealed to the imagination of one who saw his occupation dwindling in the home 
field, and, like many another since his time acting from a like impulse, he gathered his family 
and his goods and chattels together, and, turning his face to the west, set forth to seek his 
fortune in a new land. It is impossible now to tell by what road he traveled. Judging from 
the general configuration of the country, if he ascended the Euphrates by its right bank he 
would have encountered a series of morasses that would have rendered progress almost 
impossible. If, on the other hand, he crossed over to the left bank he must have found a 
better road that would take him past many large and populous towns. But, by whatever road 
he went, he came at length to the plain of Haran, a broad and level tract of country bounded 
by the mountains at the north of Babylon, and begirt by streams that flow into the Tigris and 
Euphrates. It was a fertile country, described to-day as a boundless plain, “ strewed at times 
with patches of the brightest flowers, at other times with rich and green pastures, covered with 
flocks of sheep and goats feeding together, here and there a few camels, and the son or daughter 
of their owner tending them. One can quite understand how the sons of this open country, 
the Bedouins, love it, and cannot leave it—no other soil would suit them. The air is so fresh, 
the horizon is so far, and man feels so free, that it seems made for those whose life it is to roam 
at pleasure, and who own allegiance to none but to themselves.” It is not strange that Terah 

155 




156 


THE COUNTRY OF CHALDEA. 


should have found his migratory spirit satisfied in such a country, and that he should have 
abandoned the purpose with which he set out of going into Canaan. At all events this became 
the terminus of his wandering. Here he pitched his tent, hither he drew the other members of 
his family, and the place became for many decades after his death the ancestral abode of those 
to whom the Hebrew name belonged. They went to work evidently to make this a permanent 
home. To this day the well is in constant use down whose steps Rebekah tripped, in her 
maiden freshness and beauty, to draw water for the camels of Abraham’s servant. One can 
figure to himself now the happy pastoral life that absorbed the energies of Terah and his sons. 
The years came and went, and flocks and herds, children and servants, were multiplied to them 
until they became both rich and powerful. But in due course the sands of Terah’s life ran out, 
and he was gathered to his fathers. Then came a change. The ties that hitherto had bound 
Abraham to Haran were sundered. He had discharged his duty as a son, and he was now at 
liberty to enter upon the work to which he was moved by a divine impulse. 

But before proceeding with this part of our narrative let us consider the influences— 
religious and otherwise—under which the patriarch had been reared. The people of Chaldea 
were for the most part Cushites. There was, however, a pretty large admixture of other 
elements. The fertility of the soil, the peaceable character of the inhabitants, and their mari¬ 
time connections with other parts of the world, made possible important accessions from without. 
The population had probably come in originally from the north, following the courses of the 
great rivers and attracted by the fertility of the soil. No such fertility is known elsewhere in 
the wide world. The descriptions given of it by Herodotus and other ancient writers almost 
surpass belief. “The blade of the wheat plant and the barley plant is often four fingers in 
breadth.” We are told that it was customary to mow the wheat fields twice and then keep 
down the growth of the stalk and promote the growing of the grain by pasturing cattle upon 
them. Even to this day, notwithstanding the encroachments of the desert sand and the conse¬ 
quent changes of the climate, the fertility is enormous. Under such conditions wealth increased, 
population multiplied, and the arts flourished. Existing ruins of great cities attest the opulence 
and refinement of the people. The traces are still found of vast temples, magnificent palaces, 
and even of libraries, the books of the latter composed not of perishable paper or parchment but 
of imperishable tiles. Artistic taste reached a high order of development. Much attention was 
given to science, especially astronomy, which the remarkable clearness of the skies and the 
brilliancy of the heavenly bodies greatly stimulated and promoted. The civilization was an 
attractive one. It excites our interest even at this late stage of the world’s development. No 
wonder that men were drawn to it from different quarters, or that they were led to adopt its 
customs and even its religion. At least one great Semitic family was there, and it is most 
unlikely that they were the only representatives of the race. It is impossible to tell how far 
Terah and his descendants had taken on the color of the life of the people among whom they 
dwelt, and how far the process of assimilation had gone with them. But there are certain hints 
scattered here and there in the Sacred Scriptures from the Book of Genesis to the Epistles, as 
well as certain traditions, that seem to indicate that not only Terah, but even Abraham, had 
adopted the Chaldean religion. 

That religion was elaborately polytheistic. The number of gods in the pantheon was 
almost beyond computation. The leading divinities were divided into triads. The most 
important triad, though not, perhaps, the oldest, was that in which the gods corresponded to 
the heavenly bodies, the Sun-god, the Moon-god, and the gods of the planetary system. But 
these deities were supplemented by a multitude of local divinities. Whether this religion had a 
spiritual principle behind it or not it is impossible to say. Most likely it had. Possibly there 
were sages and priests among the people who understood this principle and could expound it, 
and who saw in the elaborate machinery of the popular cult a shadow of the one omnipresent 


MONOTHEISM OF ABRAHAM. 


157 


and infinite Deity. But whatever the religion originally was, or whatever it then was in the 
thought of a few favored individuals, it had certainly greatly deteriorated. It was materialistic, 
gross, and abominably corrupt. Even in its best phases it was little more than an elaborate 
system of fetichism and magic, while the corrupt practices it sanctioned and promoted were 
revolting to every principle of decency and could but excite loathing in every soul that was 
naturally refined. This was unquestionably the effect produced in the mind of Abraham. His 
powerful genius, moreover, penetrated the disguises that religion had taken on. He went, by a 
divine instinct, to the very root of the matter. Behind all the gross and material manifestations 
of deity he saw the infinite and abiding reality. How far he went in affirming his conviction we 
cannot say. Whether he succeeded in impressing his views upon the members of his family we 
do not know. It is likely that to some extent he did. It is as likely as not that this may have 
been one of the principal considerations that induced Terah to leave the land of Ur and that 
drew after him his other children. Certainly we can readily perceive that the role of a 
religious reformer could not have been an easy one in that age and time. It is scarcely too 
much to affirm that to reform a religion so gross and sensual as the religion of the Chaldeans 
was an impossibility. To make the attempt would involve the destruction of the reformer, 
without making any permanent impression on the minds of his contemporaries. There was but 
one way open, and that was by separation, and building up from the bottom the religion that 
was pure and undefiled. This was the way chosen by the great man who has long been 
regarded by many nations and peoples as the “ father of the faithful ” and the real founder 
of monotheism. 

I have already intimated that Abraham probably came by the monotheistic notion by the 
clearness of his own reasoning. His own rational thought carried him irresistibly to the idea 
of Infinite Personality. Still, there were other elements in this remarkable conversion, if we 
may so term it, that should not be overlooked. Abraham and his family were descended from 
Shem, through Eber. Hence the name Hebrew. Their habits of life were nomadic and 
pastoral. Such a people would be likely to preserve their traditions. While, therefore, they 
did take on some of the superstitions of the period and adopt some evil practices from the 
nations with whom they came in contact, it is not likely that they wholly abandoned their 
earlier conceptions and modes of worship. The thought, that God was accessible to human 
approach, may have been — we may not go astray if we affirm that it was — still preserved in 
some vague way, at least, in the minds of the people. So that when Abraham was carried by 
his own clear and exalted vision to the conviction of the one God, it was but natural that he 
should seek to talk with him face to face. Here it was that he was lifted high above all the 
grosser forms of thought and practice. Then it was that God became to him a veritable and 
living presence, and that he could hold distinct and real communion with him. Then it was 
that God’s voice became audible and his commandment sure. It is this, too, that separates 
Abraham so widely from his own time, and makes him seem to be in sympathy with every 
time. We cannot conceive of him as having anything in common with those old superstitious 
and idol-worshiping Chaldeans. He is to us as much a man of the nineteenth century as a 
man of the age more than two thousand years before the advent of Jesus. Nor can we think 
of a time so far advanced in civilization, either that men will cease to be interested in the story 
of Abraham, or fail to be inspired by the lofty lessons of his character. Such as he was, 
however, he owed in part to his training, in part to his wonderful native endowment, making 
him one of the most extraordinary souls that the history of the world has developed, and, in 
part, to the fact that God had chosen him as the instrument for the most momentous revelation 
that the human race has received from heaven. 


CHAPTER II. 

THE CALL OF ABRAHAM. 


S OME writers speak of Abraham as receiving two calls, one while he dwelt in Ur of the 
Chaldees, and the other in Haran after the death of his father. If we confine ourselves to 
the account that is given in Genesis there appears to he but one. Indeed, the migration from 
Ur is attributed wholly to Terah, and Abraham is included in it as a dutiful son. But Stephen 
in his speech before the Council said: “ The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, 
when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.” The call appears to have been to 
Abraham and not to Terah. How, then, do we account for the statement that Terah conducted 
the migration ? The explanation is very simple if we keep in mind the patriarchal institution. 
Theoretically Terah, the oldest male member, was the head of the group. As long as he lived 
everything must be done in his name. Abraham, by reason of his superior intelligence, his 
greater bodily vigor, and by reason of certain priestly functions which he had begun to exercise, 
may have come to have a dominating influence in the family. It may have been that Terah 
had already passed completely under the domination of his will. It may have been that he 
had come to share the religious convictions of his son. All these things are not only possible, 
but probable. So that we must regard Abraham as the immediate cause of the impulse 
that was to take that great body of Semitic people away from Chaldean influences. It seems, 
too, that Canaan was the point of destination at the outset. If that were so, why should they 
have dwelt so long a time in Haran? Evidently that was a part of the divine plan. From 
the merely human side, we are at liberty to adopt a variety of considerations. The advanced 
age and consequent infirmity of Terah would have been a sufficient reason. It was only a 
filial duty incumbent upon Abraham to tarry in the fertile plains of Haran until his aged 
father had completed his earthly pilgrimage. Nahor, the elder brother of Abraham, and who, 
as the elder brother, had broken off from the patriarchal establishment of Terah and become 
the head of a new family, did not form a part of the original caravan that passed up to the 
north. But later on, moved perhaps by favorable reports that came to him from his kinsmen, 
as well as by the restless desire for change that so often takes possession of nomadic peoples, 
he followed them to their new pasture ground. Abraham, moreover, may have felt it neces¬ 
sary for his great enterprise that he should increase his possessions, that his flocks and herds 
should have time to multiply, and that he should have opportunity to increase his retinue, 
surrounding himself with menservants and maidservants, who would be obedient to his will. 
But it seems to me that the most conspicuous reason of all, as well as the most providential, was 
to establish a permanent abode for his kinspeople and tlieir descendants in Haran. The most 
important, the most imperative injunction that was laid upon the Hebrew race, after the injunc¬ 
tions of their religion, was that they should preserve the purity of their descent. Under no 
circumstances were they to take to themselves wives from the people of the land, but they were 
to go back to their ancestral seats and take their wives from the same unpolluted stock. Ethno- 
logically this undoubtedly is the reason that has made the Hebrew race one of the most distinct 
types of the entire human family; that, through all vicissitudes of migration and suffering, has 
preserved their characteristics unchanged and enabled them to resist all attempts at assimilation. 

All this is related to a most important part of the call. “ I will make of thee a great 
nation.” The departure from Ur, and again from Haran, had national significance. He was 
going forth to possess the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it. He was going 
forth not only to lay the foundations of a great family, but to multiply his descendants until 
they should be like the stars of heaven and the sands of the seashore for multitude. Now, as 


158 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY. 


159 


we look forward from this period and take in at a glance the whole of Hebrew history, and 
especially as we observe how this history fits into and is related to the subsequent movements of 
civilized races, we shall have little difficulty in recognizing how much this call implied, first, 
with reference to the constitution of the family, and, secondly, with reference to the more 
complicated organization of national life. Of course, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that 
the patriarchal system of the Hebrews was developed in a time when polygamy was the almost 
universal custom, and that immediately preceding this there was a period of great laxity and 
even of promiscuity in the relations of the sexes. We are obliged to confess, not without 
sorrow, that both Abraham and Jacob shared to some extent in the polygamous practices of 
their time. Still, one cannot read the Bible story with care without perceiving that the divine 
intention, in all the dealings with these great founders of a race and a religion, was to exalt 
the importance in the family of one woman, chosen in holy love, to be the lawful mother of 
children and to control the destinies of the household. Nothing can be clearer than the provi¬ 
dential design that the true succession, both social and spiritual, was to be through Sarah and, 
to an important extent, through Rachel. This is the more mysterious if we remember that in 
that age, and under institutions as they then existed, motherhood counted for little in determin¬ 
ing the relationship of children; that adoption was almost as common and sacred a mode of 
filiation as birth. Thus it appears that it was the mission of the patriarchs to be the indorsers 
of monogamy as well as the founders of monotheism. 

But the family was not to be in itself a finality. The family was to be purified and exalted 
because it was to become the primal unit in a larger and more important organism. The 
grandest results of civilization were to be attained through civil institutions. Accordingly the 
Hebrews themselves were to become a great and powerful commonwealth. If we had nothing 
but Jewish history before us, and were to confine our thoughts to the part which the Jewish 
nation played under David and Solomon, and even in later epochs, we should say that the call 
of Abraham and all the patriarchs was worth while. But the highest functions of the Israelites 
were not discharged in the realization and fulfillment of their own national existence. Indeed, 
the special divine functions for which God raised them up only began then. We need only to 
recall the teaching of Jesus that relationship to Abraham is not a fleshly relationship, and that 
God is able of the stones to raise up seed unto Abraham, to understand that Aryan as well as 
Semitic peoples may come into vital contact with the father of the faithful. We are wont to 
attribute our civic descent to the Roman empire. Rome in some respects reached the perfection 
of organization. Her institutions are the marvel of the world, and nearly all our institutions 
to-day are modeled on hers. This is so apparent that it is not strange that some of the wisest 
observers have concluded that the Bible story has no lesson for the student of constitutional law 
or the social philosopher in our time. No greater mistake than this, however, is possible. 
Notwithstanding its magnificent formal perfection, Roman civilization was fatally at fault in 
the laxity of the family bond. This is conceded to be one of the causes of the corruption that 
rendered the downfall of the nation inevitable. Nor can we obscure the fact that when the 
reconstruction of Roman society took place through the instrumentality of the Christian Church, 
the work was rendered indestructible by the exaltation and purification of the family, following 
the pattern furnished in the patriarchal age, and laying down the commandment given to Moses 
and reiterated by Jesus and the apostles, “ Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may 
be long in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Whatever hope the great nations of 
Europe and America may cherish of permanence is largely based upon the sacredness of the 
family. The family is the source of all our civic virtues. The protection of the family, more¬ 
over, is in no small degree the motive of all civic arrangements. Thus the call of Abraham 
reaches forward, and includes not only the Hebrew commonwealth but the greater nations and 
peoples whose multitudes are so vast that no man can number them. 


CHAPTER III. 

FROM HARAN TO CANAAN-ABRAHAM AND LOT-SODOM. 


T HE time having arrived through the death of Terah and through the strengthening of the 
family by long residence in the rich pasture grounds of Haran, and the call having been 
repeated with the blessing, Abraham took his departure for the land that was to be the scene of 
his future movements and with which his name was henceforth forever to be associated. What 
would the world give if it could but know the route over which he traveled ! But that is 
impossible. There is room only for conjecture. If the desert then bore any resemblance to the 
desert of to-day, to have taken that vast company of human beings and live stock — the sheep, 
goats, cattle, asses, and camels — such as a rich and powerful chieftain of the plains would 
naturally take with him, would have been an impossible feat. Of course, it is possible that the 
wilderness was not as desolate then as now. We know that mighty armies from Chaldea, 
Babylonia, and Assyria were wont to cross it by the shortest way, and we can scarcely under¬ 
stand how it was accomplished unless both water and forage were more abundant in that region 
then than now. But the difficulties presented by the desert to even a great army were not as 
formidable as those that were offered to a caravan like that of the patriarch, made up not only 
of men, women, and children, but of immense herds of live stock that must be sustained by the 
way. An army would make its journey with as light an equipment as possible, and it would 
carry a considerable stock of provisions with it. It could go by forced marches from- one oasis 
to another, or from one well of water to another. It would be composed of men and horses, 
hardened by military service to the endurance of fatigue and famine. If any perished by the 
way, according to the barbarous standards of the time, their carcasses could be left without 
compunction for the vultures to feed upon. All the conditions were different with a patriarchal 
group and its belongings. Here hasty movement was impossible, and the utmost care must be 
exercised, both to preserve the flocks and herds and to protect the lives of women and children. 
It, therefore, appears to be wholly out of the question that Abraham, in his departure from 
Haran, could have taken his way directly across the desert, even though the drifting sands had 
not wrought such complete havoc with vegetation as is the case at present. From Haran to 
Damascus in a direct line it is nearly 300 miles. From the ford of Thapsacus on the Upper 
Euphrates to the oasis of Tadmor, afterward the site of the city of Palmyra, it was forty miles 
over a blistering desert, without a spear of grass or a drop of water to mitigate the terror of the 
journey. It is likely, therefore, that the patriarch would keep along the edge of the foothills 
of northern Syria until he reached the mountainous regions lying east of Phoenicia and 
Palestine, and then approach Damascus by a more directly southern route. This, if the 
proper season of the year were chosen, would afford pasturage by the way and involve little 
hazard to the lives of either people or cattle. 

There is some reason for supposing that Damascus was the first prolonged halting place of 
the caravan. According to Josephus, tradition assigns to Abraham a protracted residence in 
Damascus. But there is almost no evidence to support the tradition. Indeed, the evidence of 
the Scripture account is the other way. We have, to be sure, mention of Eliezer of Damascus 
as the steward of Abraham’s house. This would almost imply that Abraham had remained 
long enough in Damascus to acquire the services of Eliezer. That, however, does not count for 
much. From the Scripture narrative it appears to,be indisputable that, within about a year 
from the time he left Haran, Abraham was in Egypt. For it was during his visit to Egypt 
that Sarah acquired possession of Hagar. After having had her as a handmaid for ten years 

160 


MIGRATION OF ABRAHAM TO CANAAN. 


161 


she gave her to Abraham to wife. Eleven years after Abraham left Haran, or when he was 
eighty-six years old, Islimael was born. In view of these facts the stay in Damascus could not 
have been much more than a long halt. From Damascus it is altogether probable he passed to 
the south, keeping the Sea of Galilee on the west, and, crossing the Jordan some seven or eight 
miles farther south, went, by what is still the common route of travel, into Samaria and came to 
Sichem or Shechem. “And Abraham passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto 
the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And the Lord appeared unto 
Abraham, and said, unto thy seed will I give this land: and there he builded an altar unto the 
Lord, who appeared unto him.” The place of Shechem is a contracted but beautiful and fertile 
valley, 1,800 feet above the level of the sea, between the mountains of Ebal on the north and 
Gerizim on the south. Moreh, however the name is derived, was a clump or grove of oak trees 
which flourished, as we know by later references, for many years in that spot. Here the patri¬ 
arch builded an altar and performed his worship. Notwithstanding that lie recognized Jehovah 
as the one and only God, he had not outgrown the disposition which so often appears in primi¬ 
tive worshipers to perform their service in sacred groves; and to Jacob no less than to Abraham 
the oaks of Moreh were sacred. 

What must have been the feeling of the patriarch as he looked about and saw all the 
land that had been given by divine promise to his seed. “ The Canaanite was then in the 
land.” A race of people akin to those from whom he had departed in Chaldea had possession 
of the territory. Yet, notwithstanding the promise, Abraham did not seek to dispossess them. 
Neither did the Canaanites endeavor to drive him out. We wonder somewhat at this, but it is 
to be accounted for in part at least by the fact that ownership in lands did not signify in the 
ancient time anything like what it signifies with us. Indeed, except in cities and places that 
were densely populated, there probably was no such thing as land ownership. Pastoral peoples 
only required space to feed their flocks, and they moved about in doing this from one pasture 
ground to another as the season changed, or as one ground after another became exhausted. So 
long, therefore, as Abraham did not interfere with any other man’s pasturage, he could come 
and go without molestation. In addition to this, Dean Stanley assigns a profound spiritual 
reason for the fact that Abraham and the succeeding patriarchs possessed the land only by 
promise. He thinks this was. the training by which they were made to perceive, partially and 
dimly, to be sure, something of the spiritual attributes of man and the spiritual nature of God. 
Dr. A. P. Peabody thinks this promise of a national existence, which was iterated and reiterated 
from the time of Abraham until the final establishment of the commonwealth of Israel, was 
made to fill the same place in the Hebrew mind that the prospect and promise of a life beyond 
the grave fills in the mind of the Christian believer. Thus, the promise of the land as far as 
the eye could see, from the rising of the sun until the going down thereof, yet never really 
owning a foot of it, except such as was purchased for a sepulcher, became for Abraham and his 
successors the enduring pledge of divine oversight. It was the serene trust displayed in this 
promise, that made Jesus declare : “ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw 
it and was glad.” 

But let us turn again to the more secular aspects of the history. The record says that 
“Abram took Sarai, his wife, and Lot, his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had 
gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the 
land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.” We notice the intimate relation 
between Lot and Abraham. At first it would almost seem that Lot was included in the call and 
promise. But his relationship to the migration must be accounted for on other grounds. Lot 
was the son of an older brother of Abraham who had died in Ur of the Chaldees. Like 
his father he had remained a member of the household of Terah, and likewise of Abraham’s 
after he came into the patriarchal succession. Thus, Abraham speaks of him sometimes as his 


162 


ABRAHAM AND LOT. 


brother, sometimes as his brother’s son, or nephew, and sometimes as his son. In the patri¬ 
archal times these various relations were often confused and blended. It is evident, however, 
that Lot held a place of considerable independence and dignity. He is spoken of as sharing in 
the wealth of Abraham. Probably anticipating the time when he should go out and become the 
head of a house for himself, he had been permitted to acquire in his own right many different 
forms of oriental wealth. Still, he and his uncle worked harmoniously together. In every 
secular enterprise they seem to have made common cause. They were one in the purpose to go 
into the land of Canaan. It almost seems as if Abraham regarded Lot as a partner in the 
great religious movement to which he had been called. But whatever may have been the 
earlier feelings of the younger man, as time wore on his devotion to his own private and selfish 
ends waxed stronger and stronger. At length, after the return of the two from Egypt, the 
point of open rupture was reached. The flocks and herds of both Abraham and Lot had 
increased so that the land was not able to bear them. It had become impossible, in other 
words, to find pasture grounds that would give forage for them all at once. The herdsmen of 
Lot quarreled with the herdsmen of Abraham. Probably Abraham had foreseen the rupture, 
for he appears to have been perfectly prepared to meet it. We cannot help marveling at the 
serenity and magnanimity of the patriarch at the same time that we are disgusted by the 
cupidity and selfishness of Lot. Calling his nephew to him Abraham says: “ Let there be no 
strife, I pray thee, between me and thee and between thy herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we 
be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me; if 
thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right, or if thou depart to the right hand, 
then I will go to the left.” Perfect liberty of choice is accorded to Lot. The patriarch does not 
fear his ability to get on under any conditions, and he is ready to give to one who had occupied 
the place of a son in his tents the better choice. But Lot, on the other hand, is full of greedi¬ 
ness and lust of pleasure. The rich pasture lands of the Jordan plain, with their fertility and 
abundance of water, awaken his cupidity. He wishes to feed his flocks in that favored territory. 
But this is not all. The increase of wealth, as is so often the case in every age, had developed 
in him luxurious tastes. The mere tending of cattle could not satisfy his desires. He. was 
anxious to come into contact with men. His birth and early training in Ur, and again his 
recent visit to Egypt, had familiarized him with the seductive phases of civilized life; and now 
that increase of riches rendered such a result possible, he desired to share the privileges afforded 
by city life. Accordingly, he not only chose for his portion the plain of Jordan, but he went to 
dwell among the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom. 

What a downfall was that! Here was one who had enjoyed the friendship and care of the 
greatest, wisest, and holiest man the world, up to that time, had seen, deliberately surrendering 
himself to a companionship that was most degrading, and adopting practices that are nameless. 
Sodom has become the synonym for everything that is vile and abominable in human life. We 
do not have a detailed account of what went on in Sodom. But we have enough to assure us 
that its wickedness was beyond all power of conception. We know something of the vile 
practices of many ancient pagan cities, and we often wonder how society could have held 
together under the existence of such iniquity. But, though the narrative in the Book of 
Genesis is not minute, there is enough to show that Sodom exceeded all other ancient cities in 
the vileness of its moral life; and, what is more, the evil was universal and all-inclusive. If 
Lot himself did not descend to the full depths of the prevailing infamy, his family, evidently, 
was completely submerged. At all events, from the moment of his separation from Abraham, 
Lot, whose life up to that time appears to have been honorable, entered upon a career the end 
of which was ignominy, oblivion, and death. The cities of the plain, of which Sodom was the 
chief, were built on volcanic soil. Underneath was what the Scripture calls “slime pits,” 
asphaltic caverns, filled with combustible matter. The fulfillment of the wickedness of Sodom 



THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 








































164 


DESTRUCTION OF SODOM—GENESIS CONFIRMED. 


was coincident with a great volcanic eruption. The destruction was widespread and complete. 
Lot’s wife was so reluctant to quit the scene of dissipation and pleasure that she was overtaken 
by the catastrophe and destroyed. Only Lot and his two daughters escaped. The human race 
has had no more impressive lesson of the power of evil associations to degrade and corrupt 
those who yield to them than is furnished by the episode in the history of Lot and his wife. 
It stands here in the Book of Genesis in black and awful contrast to the holiness of the life of 
Abraham, to warn men of the danger that lies in toying with sinful indulgence. The Savior 
of the world did not fail to use it to give emphasis to the self-denial required of those who are 
to take up and carry forward the great work of proclaiming the Gospel. 


CHAPTER IY. 

ABRAHAM’S CONTACT WITH OUTSIDE HISTORY. 

I T has been the fashion in times past to look with contempt upon the historical aspects of the 
Book of Genesis. Some of the greatest men of the last century were led completely 
astray by their failure to recognize the historical significance of the great narrative of the lives 
and fortunes of the patriarchs. Even to-day there are many — it may be said there are schools 
of critics — who affect to regard the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as wholly mythical. 
It is a story set in the midst of contemporaneous history, but does not touch it anywhere. It is 
a mere figment of the imagination, a beautiful pastoral idyl, having, it may be, a few fragments 
of fact underneath it, but facts that have been filtered through so many centuries of dreams 
and phantasies before being reduced to writing that no man can tell the true from the false. 
If we had nothing but the story itself, notwithstanding its apparent genuineness and the 
inherent probability by. which it is marked, we might almost be baffled by the criticism of it. 
But it does not stand alone. The traditions of Abraham are not confined to the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures, nor to the peoples that accept the Scriptures as the Word of God. Many peoples regard 
him as a genuine historic personage, and the salient events of his life are carefully preserved. 
Nor is this all. The researches of the last forty years, covering almost the whole territory of 
Western Asia as well as the countries watered by the Nile, have thrown a flood of light on the 
land that was traversed by the great patriarch and the peoples amongst whom he lived and 
wrought. Egypt, though still shrouded in mystery, is no longer the mysterious country it 
once was. The mighty Pharaohs, long since dead, even when the historic nations of antiquity 
were in the beginning of their civic development, have been brought forth from their hidden 
sepulchers. Their mummy cases have been opened, their wrappings have been removed, and 
the story of the strange figures upon their wrappings and upon the cases has been deciphered. 
All this gives new interest to the movements of Abraham. Like many another, before and 
since his time, he went into Egypt. The characteristic of the grazing grounds of Western Asia 
is that, while they have ordinarily great fertility and are capable of sustaining in immense 
numbers the lives of men and animals, they are subject periodically to great and prolonged 
droughts. The custom is, and always has been under such circumstances, for the nomadic 
peoples to move away from the land, driving their flocks and herds before them, and to seek a 
pasturage that has not been parched and withered by the sun’s rays. The great resort in the 
ancient time was Egypt. There, no matter how hot the sun, the ever-flowing Nile, bearing in 
its waters the rich alluvium from its mountain sources, rendered certain an abundant harvest. 
One of these periodic droughts occurred very soon after Abraham came into Canaan. By a 



ABRAHAM IN EGYPT. 


165 


natural impulse, therefore, he crossed the wilderness country which his descendants, centuries 
later, were to cross under such widely different circumstances. He went into Egypt. 

How many questions does this statement give rise to ? When, in what year of the world’s 
history, did Abraham make that journey? What did he find for civilization in Egypt? And 
who was the reigning Pharaoh? These questions are more easily asked than answered. We 
can only tell conjecturally the time. One thing is certain. Egypt was an old country at the 
time of Abraham’s sojourn. Civilization had flourished for hundreds of years in the Nile 
valley. Monuments which to this day excite the wonder of travelers, were already venerable. 
Many dynasties of Pharaohs had risen, flourished, and passed away. The time of his contact 
with Egypt is variously put at from the sixth to the seventeenth dynasty. But the data have 
not yet been unearthed by which to settle definitely the periods of the dynasties previous to and 
including the Hyksos, or shepherd kings. With what particular monarch Abraham came in 
contact is, as I have said, uncertain. There is a pretty large consensus of opinion by men 
whose views in such matters are worthy of serious consideration, that the Pharaoh here men¬ 
tioned was Set, or Salatis, the first of the Hyksos kings. Who were the Hyksos kings ? It is 
asserted by Manetho that Egypt was conquered by an alien race, who set up what he called the 
“ Middle Empire.” Says Rawlinson : “ Two native documents, one on stone and the other on 
papyrus, have proved beyond a question the fact of the foreign rule; two names of the alien 
rulers have been recovered from the inscriptions of the country; and though a deep obscurity 
still rests upon the period, upon the persons of the conquerors, and the circumstances of the 
-conquest — an obscurity which we can scarcely hope to see dispelled — yet the Middle Empire 
has at any rate now taken its place in history as a definite reality requiring consideration, 
inquiry, and, so far as is possible, description.” The prevailing opinion is that the conquering 
race was Semitic. If that is so, then their appearance, and even their language, could not have 
been strange to Abraham. 

There is a tradition that a friendly alliance was formed between Abraham and Pharaoh, 
and that Abraham rendered him assistance in his warlike operations in Upper Egypt. Rawlin¬ 
son believes that the conquerors came originally from Syria — that they were Hittites, who, 
having come into Canaan and increased in numbers until they were straitened for room, swept 
down in a great conquering wave upon Egypt. Probably at that time Egypt was ruled by a 
weak monarch and the people themselves had been weakened by luxury so that the empire was 
an easy prey to foreign invasion. The history of these Hyksos, or shepherd rulers, is inter¬ 
esting not only because they were a power in Abraham’s day, but because it is supposed to be 
the last king of this race that showed kindness to Joseph and made room for Jacob and his sons 
in the land of Goshen. It is hardly to be supposed that upon their advent into Egypt they 
possessed as high a degree of civilization as those whom they conquered. But they rapidly 
made up for their deficiencies, and before their career had closed they had made important con¬ 
tributions to Egyptian culture. 'Not only were they bold and warlike, and possessed of unusual 
powers of organization and administration, but they enriched the language of the country and 
introduced valuable modifications into the methods of artistic representation. 

One thing is certain from the account in the Book of Genesis: Polygamy was practiced 
by the Pharaoh whom Abraham found in power, as well as by every other Pharaoh of whose 
history we know anything. The enrichment of the harem was one of the important objects of 
the State. Officers were sent out to the confines of the empire to report the advent of every 
beautiful woman to the prince. Knowing this, Abraham made an arrangement with Sarah that 
she should represent herself as his sister. It does not seem that the reasons are adequately 
given in the text; but at all events this was the subterfuge adopted. It was repeated later on 
in life when he came into the domain of Abimelech. Isaac and Rebekah also employed the 
same device. There was a sense in which Sarah might say that she was the sister of Abraham, 


VICTORY OF ABRAHAM OVER CHEDORLAOMER. 


1G6 

and for this reason some have tried to defend the patriarchal pair from the charge of deceit. 
It does not avail. The claim that Sarah was the sister was made to obscure the fact that she 
was the wife. The lie is not to be reconciled with our standards of morals. The only apology 
for it must be found in the fact that Abraham, who was for the most part transcendently just, 
did not live under Christian standards, and that in his time lying was more common than 
truth-telling. 

It seems that Sarah was a very beautiful and attractive woman and that she retained her 
beauty even in old age. The consequence was that she was immediately taken and transferred 
to the harem of Pharaoh. Large presents were given to Abraham in recompense; “ sheep and 
oxen, and he asses and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.” But 
somehow things did not prosper. The record says: “ The Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house 
with great plagues because of Sarah.” The monarch was superstitious. He imagined that the 
evils he was suffering were due to the despite he had done to the great and noble sheik who had 
come to sojourn in his territory. Sending for him to come into his presence, he learned the true 
story of Sarah’s relationship. On learning that, he was only too glad to return her to her 
husband without exacting any return of the presents by which he had enriched him. There is 
no definite statement of the time that Abraham spent in Egypt. There are some vague tradi¬ 
tions, but they are without any substantial warrant of fact. It appears, however, that both he 
and Lot came out of the country far richer than they went in, though it is beyond question that 
they were already rich and powerful. 

There is one other important episode in the life of Abraham, in which he touches the 
history of the outside world. The cities of the great Jordan valley, of which Sodom was the 
chief, had been for twelve years paying tribute to Chedorlaomer, king of Elam. This was a 
powerful nation lying to the eastward of Babylonia, and all these eastern'countries had inter¬ 
course, more or less regular, with Egypt. It was a common thing, when the traffic into Egypt 
was interrupted or threatened, to send out a military expedition to bring the people into subjec¬ 
tion. Thus the Canaanites, and later on the Israelites themselves, were repeatedly punished by 
Chaldeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Medes, and Persians. The punishment would 
last for awhile, but after a time, revolt would occur. Bera, the king of Sodom, and his 
confederates, after a twelve-years tribute rebelled in the thirteenth year, and in the fourteenth 
year Chedorlaomer, with his allies, appears to take vengeance upon the rebels. The war was 
very destructive for the Sodomites, and the Eastern armies returned with great spoil and many 
captives. Among the captives from Sodom was Lot, who had become, to all intents and 
purposes, a Sodomite. Abraham took no share in the fight. But on learning that his kinsman 
had been captured, he hastily armed his trained servants, 300 men born in his house, and 
pursued the retreating hosts. He was aided by Aner, Escliol, and Mamre. Making a sudden 
descent upon them in the night, he created such a panic that the soldiers took to flight, leaving 
their spoil behind them. Thus were Lot and the other captives, both men and women, rescued, 
and the entire spoil was returned. The extraordinary character of Abraham for generosity and 
justice is shown in the settlement that was made, on his return, with Bera and the other princes. 
By the usages of war prevailing in those times Abraham was entitled to all the spoil; and the 
princes, in their gratitude for what had been done, were ready to grant it to him. But 
Abraham had taken an oath to God Most High that he would not take a thread nor a shoe 
latchet for himself. After a certain reward for his companions in arms the whole was given 
back to the original owners. 

There is an episode in the narrative that is of exceeding interest. Melchizedek, king of 
Salem, salutes Abraham and performs a priestly office in his behalf. The domain over which 
he ruled is generally supposed to be the territory surrounding what was afterward Jerusalem. 
But the surprising thing is that there should have been here a monotheist, a priest of God 



ABRAHAM AND MELCHIZEDEK. 






























































































































168 


MEETING WITH MELCHIZEDEK— ELAMITE EM FIRE. 


Most High, even as Abraham himself was, and that Abraham should have recognized his 
superiority and paid him tithes. This fact has given rise to a great deal of conjecture and has 
formed the basis of extravagant notions. Some have supposed that this mysterious personage 
was the veritable Son of God, himself. For this view they seem to find warrant in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, which, after setting forth the qualities of Melcliizedek, declares that “he 
abideth a priest continually.” It does not seem to be necessary to go to such an extreme 
length. It is only necessary to remember that Melchizedek was of the same race, doubtless, as 
Abraham. The Shemites generally may have for a long time cherished the tradition of the 
one God ; and this man may have received that tradition and based his conduct upon it. As a 
king he would, according to oriental and ancient custom, be a priest. But there is no reason 
for supposing that he cherished either his belief or his priestly function with the same degree of 
purity that Abraham did. It was but natural, however, that the great patriarch should have 
bowed reverently before one who, like himself, worshiped the one living and true God. More¬ 
over, it is a pleasing thought that, from the earliest time, on the spot where the temple of 
Solomon was one day to rise as the highest witness of human adoration, incense should have 
risen from devout hands and hearts to God Most High. So much for Abraham’s relations with 
Chedorlaomer and the Sodomite kings, as given in the record of the Book of Genesis. 

But it may be affirmed that this is all mythical — a pleasing story founded, perhaps, on 
some slight basis of fact, fashioned and wrought out in its minor details many centuries after. 
This might be regarded as plausible were it not for the fact that secular history stands as the 
living witness of the Scripture account. The existence of the Elamite empire in the time of 
Abraham is now a well-established fact. It is also well proven that the great conquering prince 
who ruled Elam was Kudur-Lagamer. Phonetically it will be seen that Chedorlaomer and 
Kudur-Lagamer are almost exact equivalents, and it cannot be doubted that they are one and 
the same person. I quote what Bawlinson has to say of him: “ Kudur-Lagamer, the Elamite 
prince, who, more than twenty centuries before our era, having extended his dominion over 
Babylonia and the adjoining regions, marched an army a distance of 1,200 miles from the 
shores of the Persian Gulf to the Dead Sea, and held Palestine and Syria in subjection for 
twelve years, thus effecting conquests which were not again made from the same quarter till the 
time of Nebuchadnezzar, 1,500 or 1,600 years afterward, has a good claim to be regarded as one 
of the most remarkable personages in the world’s history — being, as he is, the forerunner 
and prototype of all those great oriental conquerors who, from time to time, have built up vast 
empires in Asia out of the heterogeneous materials, which have in a longer or shorter space 
successively crumbled to decay. At a time when the kings of Egypt had never ventured 
beyond their borders, unless it were for a foray in Ethiopia, and when in Asia no monarch had 
held dominion over more than a few petty tribes and a few hundred miles of territory, he 
conceived the magnificent notion of binding into one the manifold nations inhabiting the vast 
tract which lies between the Zagros mountain range and the Mediterranean. Lord by inherit¬ 
ance (as we may presume) of Elam and Chaldea, or Babylonia, he was not content with these 
ample tracts, but, coveting more, proceeded boldly up the Euphrates valley, and through Syria 
into Palestine. Successful here, he governed for twelve years dominions extending near a 
thousand miles from east to west, and, from north to south, probably not much short of five 
hundred. It is true, he was not able to hold this large extent of territory ; but the attempt and 
the success temporarily attending it are memorable circumstances and were probably long held 
in remembrance through Western Asia, where they served as a stimulus and incentive to the 
ambition of later monarchs.” 

It would appear, therefore, that the princes that were confederated with Chedorlaomer were 
those who had been appointed by him over the provinces that he had subjugated. Their names 
are not much more difficult of identification than his own. Amraphel had for his province 



















170 


THE REVELATION AT MAM RE. 


southern Babylonia. Though his name has not oeen positively identified, it is conjectured that 
it may be Amar-Aku. He undoubtedly had the most important province and was held in 
highest esteem. The next king mentioned is Arioch. This is supposed to be Eri-Aku, literally 
servant of the Moon-god. He had for his domain southern Chaldea, or that part of the 
territory that was not already assigned to Amraphel. - Tidal is undoubtedly Tur-gal, who held 
sway over all the country north of Babylonia, reaching up to the mountainous regions about the 
headwaters of the Euphrates. Thus a veritable part of ancient history, which has already been 
deciphered from the monuments, and about which there can be scarcely more doubt than there 
can be about the history of the wars of Csesar, or the Norman conquest of England, fits into 
the sacred narrative — nay, this narrative throws light upon the history from the other side and 
gives to it a reality and life that it could not otherwise have. From one point of view it is 
almost as if this account of the patriarch had been divinely preserved to call up from the grave 
those dead monarchs of the Orient, and clothe them once more with flesh, and give them a living 
place in great historic movements of the race by which the civilization of humanity has reached 
its present high stage of development. If Abraham is indeed a myth,'if the story of his friend¬ 
ship for the Canaanitish princes and his contact with Chedorlaomer is a fiction, it has been 
dovetailed into the living realities of historic truth with an art that no epic and no novel, in 
the highest masterpieces of literature, has yet achieved. 


CHAPTER Y. 

ABRAHAM AND ISHMAEL. 

AFTER his memorable contest with Chedorlaomer, Abraham returns again to Mamre, which 
la - appears to have been with him a favorite camping ground. There he had built an altar 
to God Most High, and there his customary worship was performed. We can imagine him 
superintending the work of his servants, appointing their tasks for them, visiting the pastures 
in which his numerous flocks and herds were grazing, holding communication now and then 
with his fast and faithful friends, Aner, Eslicol, and Mamre, and doing all that became a great 
and powerful sheik. There was, however, a business far more serious in which he was engaged. 
He never for a moment forgot that he had been called from Ur and Haran to be a witness of 
the one living and true God, and that the land in which he was sojourning as a stranger had 
been given to him and his seed for an everlasting possession. But how was the promise to be 
fulfilled to him and his seed? The years were gathering over his head and the head of his 
faithful wife; and they were childless. “Fear not,” said God. “I am thy shield, and thy 
exceeding great reward.” But the patriarch cried in agony : “ What wilt thou give me, seeing 
I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus ? ” “ Behold, to me 

thou hast given no seed: and lo, one born in my house is mine heir.” How was this? How 
could a mere stranger and alien enter into the inheritance ? The explanation is afforded again 
by the patriarchal system. The house could "never be without a head. Blood relationship 
counted for but little. Children came not only by birth, but by adoption as well; and, in the 
failure of children, the strongest, the most exalted, stepped into the place of responsibility and 
trust. Hence Eliezer, as the person next in authority to Abraham, would become patriarch 
in the event of Abraham’s death. But “ the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This 
shall not be thine heir.” “Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars if thou be able to 
number them.So shall thy seed be.” We can hardly help wondering why the 



BIRTH OF ISHMAEL. 


171 


faith of the patriarch should have been so tried. Of course, the devout Hebrew of every time 
has seen in this promise only the pointing out of a great fleshly inheritance that was to come 
through Isaac and Jacob. But it seems to me that a wise and unprejudiced reading of the 
record must see the great spiritual significance of the promise — that the withholding of the 
fulfillment was meant to teach Abraham,-and above all, to teach us that the true descent is not 
after the flesh, but after the spirit, for “ God is able of the stones to raise up seed unto Abra¬ 
ham.” At all events, after the assurance given, Abraham seems to have accepted the situation 
without murmuring, and to have trusted God to bring about the fulfillment of the promise in 
his own way. But Sarah did not fully share the faith of her husband. She had waited until 
long past the time of life when she might naturally expect the fulfillment of the promise. Now 
she could think of no way of accomplishing the result unless by a device not unfrequently 
resorted to in the oriental world, namely the substitution of a maidservant, not exactly as a 
concubine, but as a kind of secondary wife for the purpose of childbearing. Accordingly 
Hagar, the Egyptian bondwoman, was given by Sarah, as the record says, to Abraham to be his 
wife. “ It is not necessary to mention in detail the misery and strife that followed in the train 
of this act. The jealousy and hatred of Sarah were terribly aroused by the exaltation that 
she herself had given to her handmaid. She would have cast Hagar out to die in the wilder¬ 
ness before the birth of her child, had not the angel of God interfered to encourage Hagar 
and preserve her from the fury of her mistress. But later on, after the birth of her own son, 
she did succeed in banishing both her and her offspring from the patriarchal household, and 
thus reserving the succession for the fruit of her own womb exclusively. It is impossible to 
read this story as it is simply and frankly told in the Book of Genesis without recognizing in it 
a terrible and ghastly picture of the evils of polygamy. It can scarcely be doubted, by those 
who accept the Scriptures as a divine message for the regulation of human conduct, that God, 
among other things, was teaching by this episode that domestic happiness can only be secured 
where one man is the husband of one wife, and is persistently faithful to his marriage vows.” 

The result of the union of Abraham and Hagar was the birth of Ishmael. This seems to 
have constituted a new epoch in the life of the patriarch. The reproach was now removed. 
There was no longer any fear that a stranger would enter into the inheritance in the event 
of his death. Notwithstanding the promise had been so often repeated that Sarah should bear 
a son, it would seem from the reading of the record as if Abraham had come to feel that 
the birth of Ishmael was the-fulfillment that had been promised. According to the standard of 
the time, Sarah had borne a son by the substitution of her handmaid. To the patriarch himself 
there was no difference, as sonsliip was then reckoned. Ishmael was bone of his bone and flesh 
of his flesh. In the light of ancient custom, the mother of his child, though his bondslave, was 
yet his lawful wife. Why should he not look for the fulfillment of the promise to bless all the 
kindreds and families of man in the generations of this child of deferred hope and promise ? 
It is evident that God had not yet made plain all the mysteries of his providence to the great 
founder of our religion. This is apparent if we recall how the love of the patriarch went out 
toward the child, and how seriously he regarded the great future which stretched out before him 
and his descendants. 

The institution of circumcision, the one great religious rite by which the Hebrews were 
ever after to be distinguished, is very significant. Up to the time that Ishmael was thirteen 
years old and when Abraham himself was ninety-nine, this rite had not been practiced by the 
patriarch. It is but fair to say that the rite was not original with him. He had doubtless 
become familiar with it, both during his sojourn in Egypt and by his contact with the Canaan- 
ites. On various grounds the rite held sway among many oriental peoples. For sanitary 
reasons, as it was supposed to promote fecundity, or, in some cases, on superstitious grounds, 
it was held in high favor. But none of these reasons are even hinted at by Abraham and his 


172 


ISAAC BORN—BANISHMENT OF IIAGAR. 


descendants. By them it was held to be the type of chastening and purification. Like baptism 
in the Christian Church, it signified the putting away of a sinful and evil life and the consecra¬ 
tion of the powers of heart, and mind, and soul to the service of God. It was the sign of a great 
covenant with God by Abraham and his seed after him, in their generations. Every man-child 
was to be circumcised, and the uncircumcised among them was to be cut off from his people as 
having broken the covenant of God. Thus the rite rose into new prominence and was invested 
with a new meaning. It became the distinguishing rite of the Hebrews and was to continue 
until the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles should be broken down and the fleshly 
rite disappear in the circumcision of heart and life through faith and consecration to the service 
of humanity. The institution of this rite appears to have brought great serenity to the mind of 
Abraham, and it is doubtful if it did not occur to him that the object of his call was not now 
complete. But the end was not yet. 

The record goes on to say that “ the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre.” 
While he sat in his tent door, in the heat of the day, he saw three strangers approach. With 
customary hospitality he hastened forward to give them welcome and provide for their refresh¬ 
ment and comfort. But while he was discharging toward them the duties of an host they turned 
out to be the very messengers of God who had come to renew the promise, so often made before, 
that Sarah should have a son. This time the promise was more explicit. It was declared that 
she should have a son of her own body, and that in this way the succession should proceed. 
Through that particular chosen issue, all the nations were to find the proffered blessing. What 
a strange promise! No wonder that Sarah, who overheard it in her tent, should have laughed 
aloud with skeptical scorn. She was ninety years old and her lord was an hundred. How 
could such a thing be ? Only by the mighty purpose and power of God. But when those 
things coincide there is no room for doubt. Moreover, the promise is all the more strange 
because it was no longer according to the ardent desire and hope of Abraham. His natural 
desires were already satisfied. The boy Islimael had come to fill a large place in his heart. He 
had come to feel for him the strength of a great affection, and to look forward with satisfaction 
to the devolution of the patriarchal authority and privilege upon him. He had even gone so 
far as to pray to God : “ O that Islimael might live before thee! ” He could hardly bear the 
thought that Islimael should be supplanted in the succession even by a son of the beloved and 
beautiful Sarah, the wife whom he had chosen in his early manhood and who had been his 
faithful companion and helpmeet even to old age. But this was the will of God. Hence the 
promise was repeated and in due time it was fulfilled. Isaac was born and the succession was 
established in the lawful wife and her lawful son. The succession of the bondwoman was 
excluded. The weaning of Isaac was an occasion of great rejoicing in the patriarchal household. 
But while the feast was proceeding Islimael was seen to mock. This roused the ire of Sarah 
and she demanded that the bondwoman and her son should be cast out. With a heavy heart, 
Abraham, after consulting God, took the only course by which domestic peace could be secured. 
He separated Hagar and her child from his house and sent them forth into the wilderness, 
but not, however, without liis patriarchal benediction and the assurance from God that even 
Ishmael should become a nation. We recall the history of the Ishmaelites, who for more than 
forty centuries have played a mighty part in the dramatic fortunes of Western Asia, and who, 
through all these ages, have not ceased to call Abraham their father and to hold fast to their 
faith in the one God. Though inferior in importance to the chosen seed, they have entered into 
a large inheritance and have had, at least, a share in the promise that was made to their great 
ancestor. The prayer of Abraham has been answered and Ishmael has lived before God. 

But there were grave mysteries here. Mighty questions rise again and again in our minds 
and demand an answer. Why was it needful to bring Hagar and her child into this record at 
all ? Since God is Almighty, why could he not have given Isaac directly, without permitting 



HAGAR AND ISHMAEL 



















174 


CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM. 


the life of the patriarch to be soiled by practices that are pagan and degrading? There are 
various answers to this question. In the first place, the genuineness of this story is shown by 
the fact that it was cast in the mold of customs and practices that belonged to the period 
assigned to the life of the patriarch. Evidently this is no afterthought to which Jews and 
Ishmaelites of a later time have consented. It is a real story of a real time. Along with it we 
have a picture of the world as it was 4,000 years ago. The scenes, the people, the customs, were 
only such as could have existed then. Abraham is put into this environment and made to live 
his life there. We may go farther than this, and assert that the greatness of the man is shown, 
not by his conformity to the customs of the age, but by his ability, while practicing them, to 
perceive the error that was in them, and to rise above it and, when occasion required, put it 
away. It is true, indeed, that Abraham fell into a great error when he took Hagar to be his 
wife. He saw it in due time and humbled himself under the consciousness of it. In his humil¬ 
iation, moreover, he showed himself ready to do what he could under the divine dictation to 
make amends. Then, too, as I have already intimated, we have in this story the most powerful 
rebuke that could be given of those polygamous practices which have been the curse of the 
Orient. Again w T e ask, why was Isaac a necessity after Ishmael was born ? Admitting that 
Ishmael was the son of a bondwoman, he was the son of Abraham and not to be blamed 
because of the condition or relations of his mother. Why should not the Almighty lift him up 
and let the promise that was to find its culmination in the blessing of all nations and races be 
realized in him ? It is not easy, perhaps, to give a full and satisfactory answer to this question. 
About all we can say is that in the history of the world blood is seen to count for much. There 
is a marked and irreconcilable difference between Englishmen, and Germans, and Frenchmen. 
The union of any two of these nationalities does not give a pure type. Much more wide is the 
difference between Hamites, and Shemites, and Aryans. Here is a difference that cannot be 
successfully bridged. For some inscrutable reason, God was moved, in the call of Abraham and 
the setting apart of the Hebrews as a distinct people that should be holy and acceptable in his 
sight, to preserve them from contamination and corruption by alliances with the peoples 
amongst whom they dwelt. The issue of Abraham and the Egyptian maid could not give 
the pure source out of which a nation, as wonderful as any in history, was to flow. The legiti¬ 
mate line of Abraham and Sarah must be adhered to. Whether there was any religious reason 
inherent in the character of Isaac, we do not know. The life of Isaac, in comparison with the 
almost peerless life of his father, is pale and colorless. It is almost devoid of interest or 
incident. But perhaps its very lack of positive features made it plastic so that it was easily 
fitted to the great mold that had been prepared for it. This, at least, seems to be according to 
a law of human life. One generation wins a great fortune or a great name, or does a great 
work, and the next generation conserves it, building upon it, not by way of positive and original 
construction, but by way of adjustment and accretion. This was the case with Isaac. He 
accepted the work of his father without question. He gave complete and unyielding obedience 
to his commands while he lived, and after he died he entered quietly into the inheritance 
remaining for him with the purpose to continue before men the life of the patriarch with all its 
old dignity and splendor. That Abraham and Sarah found in this gentle child of their old age 
a great and surpassing comfort is not to be questioned. In a sense they must have felt that they 
had fulfilled their destiny and that they had found a reward for all the trials and hardships 
they had undergone. If Abraham paused to reflect, as no doubt he did, he must have felt 
assured, that, in a most important sense, the call that had brought him out of Ur of the 
Chaldees, and again out of Haran, had already borne its proper fruit. Though the land of 
Canaan was not his, he could look forward to the time when his seed should enter into it and 
possess it. So far as his own activities were concerned, he may have felt that his work was 
done, and that he could now leave his son to carry forward the great purposes of the call. 


CHAPTER VI. 

THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC. 


Tj^ROM the birth of Isaac tlie current of Abraham’s life appears to have flowed on without a 
J- ripple almost, only now and then being interrupted by something that showed he was still 
mindful of the fact that he had been called and set apart as the priest and prophet of humanity 
in an age that was full of wickedness and falsehood. Even he was not wholly free from miscon¬ 
ceptions and evil practices. How could he be, unless he were a supernatural being, or a being 
supernaturally restrained from the exercise of his volitions ? The hand of God, to be sure, was 
upon him and was actively exerted at proper intervals to direct his steps. But his manhood 
was not interfered with. In a grand way his contention was with things as they were. He was 
not wholly free from the superstitions of his times. One of the most powerful of these was the 
notion that the favor of God was to be secured by the most costly and precious sacrifice. Indeed, 
this is a notion that has pervaded the minds of primitive peoples in all ages of the world. It 
is this notion, moreover, that has led to the terrible and revolting practice of human sacrifice. 
So Abraham, living in an age that was most crude and cruel in its conceptions, both of God 
and humanity, could believe that the great God whom he worshiped would be pleased if he 
should yield up, on the altar of sacrifice, that in which his highest hope was centered. All this, 
together with the fact that God, in revealing his will unto the patriarch, met him on the low 
plane of his misconceptions for the purpose of leading him up to a higher one, must be borne in 
mind as we come to the story of the sacrifice of Isaac. “And it came to pass,” we read, “ that 

God did tempt [in Revised Version, prove\ Abraham, and said unto him,. 

Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of 
Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell 
thee of.” And what did Abraham do? With the same unyielding obedience that he mani¬ 
fested when he was called to go out from Ur of the Chaldees, he made ready for the saddest 
journey he could have undertaken. If he stopped to consider the meaning of this mandate it 
must have been a sore puzzle to him to conceive how it was possible for God to fulfill the 
promise so often made by the destruction of the very child on whom the fulfillment depended. 
Perhaps, however, the patriarch did not reason about the mysterious mandate. God had 
already performed so many wonders in his behalf that he had, perhaps, ceased to doubt. The 
mighty power that had given to him and his spouse in their old age this precious child, might, 
if they were faithful, find some other way of confirming their hopes. “ And Abraham rose up 
early in the morning and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac 
his son, and clave the wood for a burnt offering, and rose up and went to the place of which 
God had told him.” Dean Stanley thinks the mountain chosen for the sacrifice was Gerizim, 
the mountain from which the incense of sacrifice has scarcely ceased to ascend for forty centu¬ 
ries. There is some reason for this, as the mountain can be seen looming against the sky from 
a long distance and would naturally make its appeal, by reason of both its mystery and majesty, 
to the devout feeling of primeval worshipers. The place, however, where this act was performed 
is of small account. All our interest centers in the act itself. 

There is hardly a passage in the sacred narrative from Genesis to Revelation that has so 
severely tried men’s faith as this. Not only has it evoked sharp dissent, but it has in some 
cases awakened a feeling of strong revolt against Abraham, and above all against the idea or 
suggestion that God could have had any active connection with the proposed sacrifice. It 


175 



176 


THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 


appears strange that readers should need to be reminded that they are not reading a narrative 
of events that occurred in the last decade of the nineteenth century of Christendom, but rather 
of events that must be placed more than twenty centuries before the Christian era, and that the 
real wonder is that men could think so clearly and correctly as they did, or that they behaved 
in so many matters so much like ourselves. The story is unaffectedly and simply told. If it 
be taken as a whole, and above all, if we keep in mind the great lessons it was meant to 
teach, (1) of self-surrender, (2) of implicit trust in God, (3) of unquestioning obedience to the 
divine will, even when it deprives us of our dearest friends and crushes our highest hopes, (4) 
or, better than all, of the great fact that God is not pleased with the bloody sacrifice and burnt 
offering, but with the consecration and devotion of heart and life, there is nothing in the story 
to offend, but everything rather to draw forth our admiration and quicken our faith. Indeed, 
what pathos there is in the laying of the wood for the burnt offering on the shoulders of the 
lad, in the simple colloquy between the father and the son as they were nearing the place of 
worship, and finally in the binding of the son and placing him upon the altar for the sacrifice. 
All this seems to have been requisite in order, by a dramatic incident, to abolish forever that 
most revolting practice of primitive worship. The readiness, the absolute self-surrender of both 
father and son, was enough — so complete was it in the instance before us that it was possible 
henceforth to lay the emphasis on that, and that alone, as the open way to the presence and 
favor of the highest. 

We cannot do better than to quote, in this connection, the profound and truthful observa¬ 
tions of Dean Stanley: “ The sacrifice, the resignation of the will, in the father and the son was 
accepted; the literal sacrifice of the act was repelled. On the one hand, the great principle 
was proclaimed that mercy is better than sacrifice, and that the sacrifice of self is the highest 
and holiest offering that God can receive. On the other hand, the inhuman superstition, 
toward which the ancient ceremonial of sacrifice was perpetually tending, was condemned and 
cast out of the true worship of the Church forever. There are doubtless many difficulties which 
may be raised on the offering of Isaac: but there are few, if any, which will not vanish away 
before the simple pathos and lofty spirit of the narrative itself, provided that we take it, as in 
fairness it must be taken, as a whole; its close not parted from its commencement, nor its 
commencement from its close — the subordinate parts of the transaction not raised above its 
essential primary intention. And there is'no difficulty which will not be amply compensated by 
reflecting on the near approach, and yet the complete repulse, of the danger which might have 
threatened the early Church. Nothing is so remarkable a proof of a divine and watchful 
interposition as the deliverance from the infirmity, the exaggeration, the excess, whatever it is, 

to which the noblest minds and the noblest forms of religion are subject.Abraham 

reached the very verge of an act which, even if prompted by noble motives and by a divine 
call, has, by all subsequent revelation and experience, been pronounced accursed. At that 
moment his hand is stayed; and the patriarchal religion is rescued from this conflict with the 
justice of the Law or the mercy of the Gospel.” 

Nearly all writers in the Christian Church have seen, or thought they saw, in the act of 
Abraham and Isaac, many strong resemblances to the great sacrifice of Calvary. Of course, it 
is possible to press an image of this kind to almost any extent. Indeed, some theories have 
been carried to the very verge of absurdity. No doubt there was something in the act that was 
by divine intention prophetic. The spirit was the same in both cases. The inexpressible love 
of Abraham for his child and yet his perfect readiness to give him up for a high purpose, is a 
faint human symbol of the boundless love of God which spared not his own Son for our sakes. 
The meek and unresisting compliance of Isaac is a partial foreshadowing of that marvelous self¬ 
surrender which found utterance in the prayer: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup 
pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Beyond this it is not wise to go. 



? J 


“LAY NOT THINE HAND UPON THE LAD 






























178 


THE CAVE OF MACIIPEL AH PURCHASED. 


Indeed, it would seem as if the main purpose was to rob sacrifice, under both the old and 
new dispensations, of its perplexing mysteries. The Jews certainly so understood it. Their 
sacrifice of animals was but symbolical. The great unceasing demand of their prophets 
was that the people should witness their devotion by the broken spirit and the contrite heart. 
This was the incense that was most acceptable to God. In the New Testament the cry of the 
Savior of mankind is the old cry: “ I will have mercy and not sacrifice,” or higher still in 
the hour of his sharpest agony, though forced to exclaim, “ My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me?” he immediately adds, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” There 
is, therefore, one order, one spirit, one grand lesson, running through from the beginning of the 
revelation of God to its sublime consummation in the garden of Gethsemane and on Calvary. 
In this sense certainly these two events are bound together. In this sense the one is the 
portent, the shadow, the type, the prophecy of the other. In this sense the unresisting obedi¬ 
ence of Isaac and the voluntary submission of Jesus are but the varying exhibitions of that 
matchless love by which God is drawing the nations of the earth unto himself. Herein Mount 
Moriah and Mount Calvary meet and blend together as the veritable mountain of God. Nay, 
further, we can see how the oath of the Lord which he swore by himself saying, “ Because thou 
hast done this thing and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son ; ... in blessing I will 

bless thee, and in multiplying, I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the 
sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. And in 
thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” 
We can see how this oath finds its counterpart and culmination in the declaration of Jesus: 
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw Ml men unto me.” The seed of Abraham 
is without limitation of race, or sect, or creed. All to whom the appeal of the cross is made 
may find acceptance through faith and sacrifice. 

There is not much more of large historic moment in the life of Abraham. One or two 
incidents, however, remain that have a tender, almost a religious interest. We cannot close the 
account of the great patriarch’s career without noticing them. Sarah’s great work was com¬ 
plete in giving birth to Isaac, though she was permitted the privilege of seeing him grow to 
mature manhood. When she had reached the age of one hundred and twenty-seven, and when 
Isaac was thirty-seven, she died. On the death of Sarah it became necessary for Abraham to 
provide himself with a burial place. Here was this mighty sheik, with whom princes were 
confederated, who could from “ those born in his house ” equip an army, to whom the most 
high God had sworn again and again that to him and his seed would he give all the land of 
Canaan, owning nothing of the land in which he dwelt unless it were the wells he had dug for 
his cattle. The death of Sarah occurred in Hebron, that part of Canaan where Abraham 
spent so large a portion of his time.- His desire was for the double rock cave, in the field of 
Machpelah, that belonged to Ephron the Hittite. The account that follows gives a most 
graphic picture of a very ancient form of conveyance. In the first place there is a formal 
assembly of all the people who could have any possible interest in the sale. Then there are 
the set questions and answers as in an ancient Homan mancipation. There were the dramatic 
features all intended to make a profound and lasting impression on the minds of the witnesses, 
as Abraham bowing himself down in the presence of the people. Finally the scales are 
brought out and the money is actually weighed in the sight of all, “400 shekels of silver, 
current money with the merchant.” All this points to a very primitive time, when not only 
registry was unknown, but when conveyances by writing had not been thought of, and when 
land was not the property of a single individual but belonged to a group of persons, a family, 
and even a tribe. Here is one of the indubitable witnesses of the high antiquity of the story. 
It is absolutely incredible that at any late period of the Hebrew history the details of this 
purchase could have been invented. None but an eyewitness of the scene itself, or at least one 


r 



H. TERNET. 


REBEKAH AND ELIEZER 












































180 


ABRAHAM SEEKS A WIFE FOR ISAAC. 


wlio was familiar with transactions as ancient and primitive as these, could have told that tale. 
Moreover, the field and the cave still remain. From the hour that Abraham purchased the 
spot as a burial place for his beloved companion it lias been held sacred alike to Jews, Moham¬ 
medans, and Christians; and it is believed that to this day the remains of the patriarchs and 
their wives have remained undisturbed. The cave of Machpelah holds great secrets which 
some time may be brought out to confirm the faith of the world. 

After the death of Sarah, Abraham, feeling the weight of years pressing upon him, and 
realizing that he had not much longer to stay upon the earth, called his old and faithful 
servant, Eliezer, to him and made him swear that he would not take a wife for Isaac from 
the daughters of the land, but that he would go back to the ancestral seats and fetch one of 
his own kindred to share with him in the perpetuation of the race. When God undertakes to 
lay the foundations of a nation or a race > he takes great pains in the selection of the mate¬ 
rial. Longfellow has given poetic expression to the truth in the familiar lines concerning the 
Pilgrims: 

“ God had sifted three kingdoms to find the wheat for this planting, 

Then had sifted the wheat, as the living seed of a nation.” 

The nation that was to spring from Abraham and his descendants was to be the most unique 
and peculiar that the world has ever witnessed; and the work that was to be accomplished in 
and through it was to be the most difficult, the loftiest, the most delicate, sacred, and far-reach¬ 
ing in its consequences of any work that has ever been done for man. For this reason the 
race must be absolutely pure in its beginning. No cross between the Hebrews and the Egyp¬ 
tians could be tolerated. Hence, Ishmael was set aside, though he was the firstborn, and Esau, 
later on, was rejected for similar reasons. Isaac must not marry a wife from the daughters of 
the land. This is the oath that was exacted from the old servant, Eliezer of Damascus, the 
steward of Abraham’s house, that he would journey back by that way over which Abraham 
came into Canaan to the Syrian plain in which Abraham had left his kindred when, in obedi¬ 
ence to the mandate of God, he came out of Haran. The story of that journey is simply but 
graphically told. Eliezer loaded the camels with precious stuffs as a bridal present to the 
damsel whom he was to bring back to be the wife of his young master, and went forth to the 
home of Nahor, Abraham’s brother. Arriving there, he waited by the well for the maidens to 
come forth in the evening to draw water. While waiting he prayed to God to enlighten him 
by certain signs. But before the prayer was fully formed in his heart, the beautiful Rebekah 
came forth with her pitcher upon her shoulder and tripped down the steps of the great well for 
her pitcher of water, and as she came up again Eliezer hastened forward and asked her for a 
drink. With gracious hospitality she complied with his request, and not only gave him a 
drink, but immediately began to pour water into the troughs for the camels. Then when the 
servant of Abraham had questioned her and found out her lineage, that she was indeed kindred 
to Abraham and his son, he made known to her the errand on which he had come. He takes 
from his rich treasures a beautiful nose ring for Rebekah’s face. He puts two heavy bracelets 
upon her wrists, and asks for entertainment. Of course, he is welcomed. The greedy and 
crafty Laban, of whom we shall see more later on in this history, the brother of Rebekah, 
seeing the rich jewels that have been bestowed upon his sister, hastens forth to bring Eliezer 
into his father’s tent. But it is not courtesy that the great servant of Abraham is seeking, but 
a wife for his master’s son. So lie urges forward the business with all speed. The preliminaries 
of the betrothal are completed before retiring to rest. In the morning Eliezer demands an 
immediate and decisive answer to his request. Of course, the opportunity for so grand a 
marriage for Rebekah must not be lost. Moreover, Laban and Bethuel had seen the hand of 
the Lord in the meeting between Rebekah and Eliezer. Still, they would postpone the consum¬ 
mation of the business for a few days. Perhaps Laban thought he saw the possibility of his 



REBEKAH ACCEPTING ISAAC’S PRESENTS. 
























182 


THE RETURN OF EIAEZER. 


own enrichment by presents which Eliezer might be induced to bestow upon him while he 
waited. But Eliezer was a thorough business man, as we would say to-day. He had come on 
a great errand. He was ready to pay the stipulated price for the maiden — for women were 
really sold in marriage in Abraham’s time — but as soon as that was done he must be gone. 
Under the circumstances, then, there was nothing to be done but to summon Rebekah and ask 
her if she was ready to accompany this man into Canaan. With characteristic eagerness and 
impetuosity, when the question was put to her if she would go with him whom the Lord had 
sent to her, she said : “ I will go.” So the caravan started, bearing Rebekah on as momentous 
a journey as ever woman took in this world, carrying with her the blessing of her family, 
with the petition sounding in her ears that she might become the mother of thousands of 
millions. 


CHAPTER VII. 

ISAAC AND REBEKAH. 

^PHE fact that both Abraham and Isaac were awaiting his return with impatience contributed 
J- no doubt to the haste of Eliezer. The death of Sarah had admonished the patriarch that 
whatever he was to do in his own j>erson, to make sure of the succession and fulfill the promise 
made at the birth of Isaac, must be done quickly. Isaac himself was in sadness and dejection 
of spirit on account of the loss of the mother who had lavished upon him the affection of her 
old age, and needed the comfort which only the love of a true heart could bring. His mother’s 
tent standing silent and empty emphasized the desolation and loneliness of his spirit. These 
things were a lodestone to draw Eliezer back to Canaan with all speed. Likewise the signs 
that had attended the performance of his errand, the almost miraculous finding of Rebekah, 
the fact that she was of Abraham’s near kindred, her beauty and high spirit, and her readiness 
to accept the proffer of his young master, above all the confusion and consequent compliance of 
Laban and Betliuel in the face of the portents, and their frank acknowledgment that the thing 
proceeded from the Lord and they could not speak either good or bad, all had the effect of 
making Eliezer feel that he too was in the hand of God Most High, and was his chosen agent to 
assist in carrying out the sublime purposes of the call. By what route he traveled, either in 
going into Syria or returning to Canaan, it is impossible to tell. He may have followed the one 
which Abraham took on his departure from Haran, which was most likely the longer way along 
the foothills of Northern Syria and Palestine as affording pasturage for his flocks and herds 
on the road, or he may have taken the shortest course over the desert. From the evidences 
of haste afforded by the narrative, and from the fact that the caravan was composed only of 
camels to bear the burdens and carry the people, it is likely that the latter was the route chosen 
in both going and returning. The distance from Beersheba to Haran, across the desert by the 
way of Damascus and the oasis of Tadmor, was about 450 miles — possibly 500 miles. The 
fleeter variety of camels in our time, when not too heavily laden, can travel fifty miles a day for 
many days in succession. It is not improbable that the ancients were as careful in breeding 
their animals for speed as the moderns. In that case, about twenty to twenty-five days would 
have been occupied in the round journey. At all events, whatever the time, it could be easily 
calculated. It is evident that Isaac was expecting the return of his father’s servant, and as the 
owner of a vessel bound on an important voyage looks out in due season for its appearance in 
port, so Isaac went out not only to meditate but to watch for the coming of those ships of the 



ISAAC AND RE BEK AH. 


183 


desert “ that bore such a precious freight for him.” At last he discerns them, far off, probably 
on the edge of the horizon, and hastens forward to meet them. As he draws near, Rebekah 
inquires of Eliezer who is the distinguished-looking stranger approaching. On being informed 
that it is his young master, the very man whom he has brought her out of Syria to marry, she 
alights from her camel and covers herself with a veil. This action is prompted by two reasons, 
first, because in that country, then as now, no maiden might meet a man of high distinction and 
noble bearing while riding, and, secondly, because, then as now, in that quarter of the world, 
no virgin might lawfully be seen unveiled by the man who was to become her husband until 
after the consummation of the marriage. Isaac, according to oriental custom, addressed himself 
not to the maiden but to the servant, who gave him an account of his enterprise and of the 
divine portents by which it had been attended. Then Isaac took Rebekah and led her in to 
his mother’s tent and she became his wife, and when he beheld her beauty and recalled what 
she had forsaken for his sake he loved her with a love that was to last till death. 

The characters of Isaac and Rebekah are in strange and strong contrast. The account of 
their lives, very uneventful for the most part no doubt, is much more meagerly given in the 
sacred narrative than we could wish. Nor does tradition help us out much. Still, we have 
sufficient data for a pretty reliable portrait of this wonderful pair whom God had united for the 
working out of his most wonderful and far-reaching designs. It is almost beyond question that 
Rebekah was one of the most remarkable women of whom history has made record. No one 
can read the brief story of the Book of Genesis without reaching the conviction that she was 
endowed with an extraordinary beauty. Her personal charms, however, only served to heighten 
an extraordinary character. Enterprising, ardent, high-spirited, proud, every vein in her body 
filled with the warmest oriental blood, she seemed to be endowed with some lofty sense of the 
call, and to recognize her responsibility under it. At the same time, we are obliged to confess 
that she manifested something of the greed and craft of her brother Laban, and had some of 
his unscrupulousness in her method of securing the fulfillment of the promise through the line 
of her favored son. Perhaps we ought not to be surprised at this. It would be manifestly 
unfair, in view of her birth and early surroundings, to judge her as if she were a daughter of 
Abraham. Unquestionably her energetic spirit and unyielding determination have stamped 
themselves upon the thousands of millions of whom she is the mother. We cannot, therefore, 
read the strange and eventful histories of the Israelitish people without beholding, more or less 
distinctly, everywhere a reflection of the woman of glorious beauty and haughty spirit whose 
blood courses in all their veins. Isaac evidently was the very antipode of his wife, a man of 
contemplation, a man of peace, a man of meek and lowly mind, destitute of the enterprise that 
had made his father a mighty prince whom other princes were only too glad to be “ confederate 
with,” more ready to suffer wrong than to right it — content to enter into the patrimony of his 
father, and to keep it by a quiet and conservative adherence to the ancient ways. Still, I think 
we are amply justified in regarding him as a man of devout habit and spiritual temper. He 
maintained the ancient altars and performed the worship which his father had taught him. He 
was not destitute of the high vision and unquestioning faith that had given his father a place 
apart from all other men. At the same time he appears to have given himself almost exclu¬ 
sively to the care of his flocks and herds, so that he is very appropriately the connecting link 
between that life of faith which saw the blessing of God reaching out to include all nations and 
kindreds of mankind, and those narrower phases of religious conviction and worship, together 
with a peculiar absorption in secular things, that were indispensable to the development of a 
particular race. However, therefore, we look at Isaac, we see him standing midway between the 
father of the faithful on the one hand and that other strange being whose life, beginning in low 
cunning and deceit ends on the very heights of prophecy, crying “gather yourselves together, 
ye sons of Jacob, and hearken unto Israel your father. 


184 


JACOB AND ESAU. 


Twenty years elapsed without any fruit to bless the union of Isaac and Rebekah. It was a 
long and anxious waiting. But at length, in answer to prayer and sacrifice, Rebekali’s womb 
was opened and two sons were born. The first came forth all red and hairy, and accordingly to 
him was given the name of Esau. The second came forth grasping his brother’s heel, and to 
him, therefore, was given the name of Jacob, “ the supplanter.” These children as they grew 
were even more unlike in character than were father and mother. Esau was a wild and lawless 
youth, careless of the feelings and hopes of others and equally careless of his own interests. 
Following the polygamous practices of the times, he made various alliances with the Canaanitish 
women, “ which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and Rebekah.” With Abraham alive to utter 
his warning against it, with the remembrance of the reason for sending Eliezer to Haran for 
Rebekah strong in their thought, they must have been fully persuaded that the succession could 
not proceed in that way. The conduct of Esau was undoubtedly the occasion of much earnest 
expostulation on the part of father and mother. Finally, by way of deference to the Hebrew 
stock, Esau took a wife from the descendants of Ishmael. This, however, was not in the 
appointed way. Ishmael had been previously rejected in his own person and he could not be 
brought into the inheritance through his descendants. There are many things that bear witness 
to the reckless and untamable spirit of Esau. He was a hunter. Coming in from the chase 
hungry and seeing his brother with a savory mess ready for the table, he asks that his hunger 
may be satisfied with it. Jacob offers it to him for his birthright. Precisely what the birth¬ 
right was it is impossible to say. Most commentators treat the birthright of Esau and the 
“blessing” of Isaac as if they were one and the same thing. But they are not. They are 
plainly distinguished by Esau himself. Moreover, most writers appear to think that primo¬ 
geniture was the prevailing custom in patriarchal times, but it was not. Abraham was not the 
oldest, but the youngest son of Terah. Isaac, the secondborn, was preferred before Ishmael, 
the firstborn. Jacob, the secondborn, was accepted in the place of Esau, the firstborn. Reuben, 
the firstborn of Jacob, was cast out and cursed for iniquity. Again, Ephraim, the second¬ 
born of Joseph, was distinctly chosen instead of Manasseh. At the same time, there was a 
special tenderness for the firstborn son. Undoubtedly he had certain prerogatives and privi¬ 
leges which belonged to him by reason of his birth—just what we cannot now say — and it 
was these that Esau “ despised,” in comparison with the soup of lentils. Notwithstanding his 
lawless spirit, Isaac evidently had a particular fondness for Esau. Beyond question he was not 
the first nor the last parent whose heart has gone out with a deep yearning for a wayward, 
impetuous, and ungovernable child. Perhaps the very contrast of Esau’s temper with his own 
made him love him all the more. It can scarcely be that the finger of God had made it plain 
to Isaac that the succession was to be in Jacob. But Rebekah, perhaps under the instruction 
partly of Abraham, who lived until Jacob was fifteen years old, saw more clearly. The quiet, 
gentle youth, domestic in his habits, contented with the flocks and herds of the field, the young 
man of meditative mind, planning for and forecasting the future, had in him the elements out of 
which God would be more likely to make a nation. It is not strange that she should watch 
between these two children with increasing vigilance. 

At length the supreme moment arrived. In his old age, when his vision and strength had 
failed, Isaac thinks of the succession. Who is to have charge of what the ancient Romans 
called the Sacra ? Who is to be intrusted with the implements of worship ? Who is to perform 
the sacrifices of the family and hold communion with Jehovah? In other words, who was to 
continue the patriarchate ? That, be it remembered, and not property, was the vital thing. So 
far as appears from the record, Jacob never received any of Isaac’s property. What he had in 
the way of goods he had earned himself by long years of painful toil and service. The fore¬ 
going were the questions which, in his old age, lay heavily on Isaac’s soul. In his weakness it 
was but natural that he should turn wistfully to the beloved child of the chase. Calling Esau, 


THE SUCCESSION VESTED IN JACOB. 


185 


therefore, and bidding him go forth and capture venison for him, he promises to give him the 
“blessing.” But Rebekah, hearing the colloquy, immediately prepares to circumvent it. By 
the device that is familiar to everybody, Jacob is substituted for Esau in the “blessing” of 
his father. The question now is — the question no doubt that has been raised by countless 
readers—why should a blessing obtained by fraud stand ? Why should not a blessing so given 
have been recalled ? Above all, why should not Isaac, in obedience to the bitter cry of Esau, 
have given a second blessing to Esau ? The answer to these questions is simple. In the first 
place, the designation of the succession was a solemn thing. It was done with great formality, 
and that by ancient custom could not be recalled, no matter how it was obtained. The second 
blessing could not be given, because the blessing that carried with it the succession or headship 
of the family could only be for one. Jacob having secured it, there was no place for Esau. It 
was only natural that Esau should feel a deep resentment at the subtlety of his brother, so much 
as to make it dangerous for the latter to remain in the same tents with him. We can readily 
appreciate the motherly solicitude of Rebekah, in preparing for Jacob’s flight. It will be 
noticed that Isaac himself, after recovering from the sharp disappointment occasioned by the 
subterfuge, entered heartily into the plan of sending Jacob back to the ancestral seats for a 
suitable marriage. The old feeling of resentment at Esau’s conduct in defying the conditions 
by which the purity and permanence of the family were to be secured remained. Isaac saw, 
when he came to reflect, as he was undoubtedly led to do by the expostulation of Rebekah, that 
the hope of the future was vested in Jacob, and so he did not hesitate to repeat to his second 
son the injunction which Abraham gave in his own case to Eliezer: “Arise, go to Padan-aram, 
to the house of Bethuel, thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters 
of Laban, thy mother’s brother. And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and 
multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; and give thee the blessing of Abra¬ 
ham, to thee and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art 
a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.” Thus Isaac rises to a full appreciation of the 
significance of the call and performs his part in bringing it to a successful issue. 

Perhaps we ought not to dismiss this account altogether without some reference to the 
colloquy between Isaac and Esau after the discovery of the deceit that had been practiced by 
Jacob and Rebekah. Esau inquires, “ Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me ? ” And Isaac 
answers: “ Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for 
servants.” Then Esau, almost in despair, cries, “ Hast thou but one blessing, my father ? 
bless me, even me, O my father.” Then it is that Isaac rises to the height of prophecy and 
says: “ Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from 
above; and by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to 
pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.” 
Here is a wonderful epitome of the subsequent history of Edom. Esau was not a nonentity. 
He was brave, restless, and enterprising. These qualities he stamped upon his descendants to a 
remarkable degree. They were as unstable as water. But they were fearless as they were fickle. 
In the language of Josephus, “A tumultuous and disorderly nation, always on the watch upon 
every motion, delighting in mutations; and upon your flattering them, ever so little, and peti¬ 
tioning them, they soon take up arms, and put themselves in motion, and make haste to a battle 
as if it were a feast.” Sometimes they were in alliance with the Israelites, sometimes they were 
arrayed in arms against them. Sometimes they believed the prophets and sometimes they 
rejected them altogether. The Herodian family were of this stock, and in them we see depicted 
their variations of temper and attitude — the cruel destroyer of the innocents, the eager listener 
to the message of John the Baptist, and Agrippa, almost persuaded by the eloquence of Paul to 
be a Christian. Truly, that was a far-reaching vision of the aged patriarch which saw the 
qualities of his son in his descendants to their remotest generation. It is strange, indeed, that 


186 


JACOB LEAVES HOME. 


in these earlier Old Testament characters we find the types of the nations that proceeded" from 
them and followed in their steps. But it was so in the case of Esau no more, and no less, than 
in the case of Jacob. Both of them were prototypes of the peoples who have borne their names; 
both of them left the indelible marks of their characters upon their descendants; both of them 
live in the pages of human history by the qualities they have transmitted to posterity. In the 
case of Jacob, as having greater patience, pertinacity, and persistency of spirit which nothing 
can break — the unflinching determination that rises dauntless and victorious even from every 
defeat — a race has been created, bearing his name, that has passed through every vicissitude of 
freedom and oppression, of exaltation and humiliation, of prosperity and poverty, of glory and 
reproach; sometimes grasping the scepter of power, and again deprived of it altogether; some¬ 
times intrenched in the land which God gave by promise to Abraham, and again scattered 
abroad as fugitives and strangers over the face of the whole earth, but continuing, nevertheless, 
and bidding fair to continue, with all their peculiarities, as a distinct people, while time shall 
last. The history, therefore, of the founder of such a people, apart even from any religious 
significance arising from his connection with the call of Abraham, is of the utmost importance 
and the deepest interest. On secular grounds alone the past ages of the world present no name 
that is more worthy of careful and profound study than Jacob. 


CHAPTER VIII. 

THE FLIGHT OF JACOB. 

rpHE flight of Jacob marks a distinct turning point in the history. In the first place, the 
J- migration seems to return upon itself. The movement is for a time reversed. Whereas 
Abraham was bidden to go out from his kindred and his father’s house, Jacob returned to the 
ancestral seats. He leaves the land which God had sworn to give him and his seed and 
becomes a Syrian. Looking back upon it as we do over the long vista of subsequent history, 
we see only the temporary aspects of the event. If we could take a contemporary view it 
would seem almost like a deliberate abandonment of the call. Moreover, when the call is again 
accepted it is on lines that are distinctly narrower than those pursued by Abraham. It no 
longer has the world-wide, nor even the Messianic aspects it had before. It pertains rather to 
the sons of Jacob, the people of Israel. In passing over, therefore, in our account from 
Abraham, “ the friend of God,” to Jacob, “ the plain man dwelling in tents,” we seem to be 
passing from one to whom the divine mind was open, and who was indeed the executor of 
the divine purpose, to one who, while governed by ordinary human motives and seeking the 
ends which common mortals strive to attain, was yet directed and controlled by an infinite 
providence. 

The movement of Jacob has some of the aspects of a flight, as if he were trying to escape 
the avenging presence of his brother. Before his departure he presents himself once more to 
his father, whose anger seems to have subsided, and who gives him a renewal of the blessing, 
repeating the very words that before had been used in designating Abraham as the founder of a 
new race and a new religion. Moreover, as far as Isaac is concerned, he does not appear to be 
conscious of sending his son merely to a place of safety, but rather is marking him out as his 
successor in the divine trust, and as such sending him to Padan-aram for a wife according to 
the limitation imposed by Jehovah in the original call. This view is confirmed by the fact that 
though Isaac lived sixty-three years longer, his life dropped entirely into the background, and 



GOD APPEARS TO JACOB. 


187 


only momentarily appeared again in the most inconsequential way. Jacob is henceforth the 
one prominent figure in the patriarchal story in whom the designs of providence are centered. 
Some commentators seem to think that Jacob must have taken with him at least a small retinue 
of servants. Remembering the wealth of Isaac in “servants and cattle,” it would seem to be 
almost inherently improbable that he should not. The record, however, does not say so. 
Indeed, from the beginning of the account to the time of his arrival at “ Laban’s house ” there 
is no hint of either servants to bear him company, or camels or asses to lighten his journey. 
The distinct impression is rather that he was alone. Nay, he himself says, “ with my staff 1 
passed over this Jordan.” 1 If this be true, as it seems to me it must be, the impressiveness of 
the story is greatly heightened. 

The point of departure was Beerslieba, the country abounding in wells of sweet water in 
the far south of Palestine, where both Abraham and Isaac delighted to sojourn. The first 
halting place mentioned in the narrative was in the mountains of Ephraim, about twelve miles 
north of the subsequent site of Jerusalem, and at least four days’ journey from Beersheba. 
This halt, however, deserves historic preservation, because it was the scene of the wonderful 
vision, the most striking account of angelic appearance and revelation contained in the Old 
Testament; and because, also, it marks the beginning of a life-long consecration to the will of 
Jehovah and the lofty and far-reaching purposes of the call. While Jacob rested, with one of 
the stones of the place for a pillow, he saw a ladder or staircase reaching from earth to heaven. 
At the head of the staircase was God himself, while traversing up and down over the steps of 
that mystic ladder were the shining forms of angels. Where, even in the New Testament, do 
we have a more distinct, impressive, and beautiful account of the spiritual nature of man, of 
the communion of saints, of the reality of heavenly intercourse, and the possibility of human 
access to God? No wonder that Jacob should have recognized this as a great event which 
denoted a turning point in his career. How it opened his mind, too, to the divine omnipres¬ 
ence : “ Surely the Lord is in this place and I knew it not! ” A holy awe takes possession of 
him as he sees himself as something other than the mere patriarchal successor of Isaac and 
Abraham, going forth into a strange land to seek a wife and fortune, as he recognizes that God 
is calling him, as before he had called Abraham, to be his minister and do his will. It may not 
be that Jacob had all the largeness of view of the spirituality of providence that is possible 
to those who have had the advantage in their training of the three or four thousand years that 
have elapsed since the event occurred. It may be that into the covenant he was about to make 
with God there entered something of his human selfishness and ambition. How could we 
reasonably expect it to be otherwise, in view of the nature and training of the man? It is 
enough for us to know that he rose from that slumber and the vision that came to him in his 
sleep, as Saint Paul did from the light that shone upon him in the Damascus road — as, indeed, 
everyone must from a heavenly vision and a holy call — a changed man. Life meant more to 
him than it had ever meant before. A wholly new relation had been established between him 
and his God, and he must do his work henceforth in a different spirit and purpose from any he 
had yet cherished. Therefore it was that he called the place Bethel, the house of God. There¬ 
fore it was that he took the stone that had served as his pillow and transformed it into an altar. 
He set it up as a memorial to remind him, when he should return to the land of promise, of 
the glory that had shone upon him there. He poured oil upon it, that it might be rendered 
sacred in the sight of men, and vowed that when he should come again he would perform his 
worship on that spot. Not only to Jacob, but to the Hebrews ever after, that was a sacred spot. 

But perhaps the most interesting and impressive part of the whole narration of the halt at 
Luz or Bethel was the vow which Jacob made. Feeling that God had met him there, and that 
he was, indeed, in his very presence; believing that thus far he had directed his steps, he felt 


1 Genesis xxxii, 10. 



188 


MEETING OF JACOB AND RACHEL. 


impelled to declare that, if God would continue with him as his guide and guardian, he would 
enter into his service and pay to him a regular and stated worship. Here we note the begin¬ 
ning of that mighty and majestic ritual, which in due time was set up at Jerusalem, and which 
has been transmitted, with many accretions and modifications, through priests of the Levitical 
order, and prophets and devout men of diverse nations and tongues, to the Christian Church. 
Some men have been disposed to sneer at this vow of Jacob, because he made his promise of 
worship conditional on the divine care and guidance, and because he promised if God would 
give him prosperity he would return to him a tenth part of his increase. In reply to the criti¬ 
cism it may be said, putting ourselves in the place of Jacob, how could he know that Jehovah 
was his God unless he did guide and help him; and again, where, among even the more enlight¬ 
ened Christian communities, have there been any that were willing to devote more, than a tenth 
of their possessions to religious uses? Ought we not rather to feel — admitting that Jacob was 
crafty, that greed was sometimes an overmastering passion with him — that it was a great 
triumph for one walking in a light so dim to rise to so lofty a height of spiritual perception, 
and to set apart so large a portion of his goods to holy uses ? Surely it was a point of wide 
departure, the initial step in that movement which has had highest significance in the religious 
development of the human race. Here, in the misty morning of patriarchal times, we have 
more than a faint intimation of that doctrine which the greatest of Israel’s sons taught to the 
Samaritan woman, namely, that “ God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him 
in spirit and in truth.” 

After this episode, “ Jacob went on his journey.” By what route he traveled, or how long 
he was in reaching his destination, we have no means of knowing. But, if he went alone and 
on foot, it would have been almost essential that he should keep somewhat close to the haunts of 
men. Unless he had fleet camels and experienced drivers, it would be almost certain death to 
take the short road across the desert. Moreover, there being no occasion for haste, as in the 
case of Eliezer going to bring home a bride for his young master, it is altogether probable that 
he took the longer route by the way of the foothills, going first northerly, and then turning to 
the eastward as he approached Syria. 

Although there is no mention of it in Scripture, it is altogether likely that some communi¬ 
cation was kept up between Rebekah and her family. When the time came for the departure 
of Jacob she seemed to be aware of the condition of the family of Laban. He was enjoined 
to find a wife among the daughters of Laban. Jacob knew, therefore, as well as Eliezer 
before him, how to direct his steps in order to reach the abode of his kinsman. Familiar 
with the habits of the country, he did not shape his course to the well outside the city gate 
where Abraham’s servant first met his mother. He seemed to be aware that the family of 
Laban was engaged in feeding their flocks in the pastures remote from the city, and hence he 
aimed for the well that was in the field, knowing that sooner or later someone in authority 
would come to the well to water the flocks. How was his heart rejoiced when he beheld the 
daughter of the house, the beautiful Rachel! With what eagerness he sprang forward to 
assist her in removing from the mouth of the well the great stone placed there for protection 
against the drifting sands of the desert! This surely was a momentous meeting, one of the 
most momentous in the history of the human race; for it was the meeting between the man 
whose name was to be indelibly stamped upon one of the greatest nations of mankind, and 
the woman who by him was to be the mother of one of the most remarkable men whom the 
world ever saw, the man who was to change the political constitution of the mightiest empire 
then in existence, and, by virtue of his authority and power in Egypt, to preserve the whole 
Hebrew stock from extinction. What a touch of our human nature we have here also! As 
soon as Jacob saw the face of Rachel he loved her with- a love that never wavered nor waned to 
the hour of his death. That circumstance, taken in connection with the joy he felt that he had 





MEETING OF JACOB AND RACHEL 












































190 


THE MARRIAGES AND FAMILY OF JACOB. 


found at last, after his long and weary journey, his mother’s kindred, completely overcame him, 
so that he burst forth into weeping. It was the natural overflow of feelings long pent up. 
Laban, when he learned that his sister’s son had come from Canaan, gave him a true oriental 
welcome. Doubtless he recognized a marked difference between this empty-handed stripling 
and the rich steward of Abraham’s house, who came with costly gifts to purchase Rebekah for 
his young master. But he keeps his own counsel, and for a month makes Jacob his guest. By 
that time he is ready for a bargain. By that time, too, no doubt, Jacob had given proof of his 
capacity. Laban asks his nephew on what terms he will serve him. In Jacob’s heart there is 
but one desire, and that is Rachel; and so he answers that he will serve seven years for her. 
Some commentators say that was a common price for a man who had no money to pay for a 
wife. At all events, it was a price that Jacob was perfectly willing to give, and which was 
satisfactory to her father. He entered at once upon the service, and the seven years seemed but 
a few days because of the love he had for her. 

At length the time arrives for the discharge of the debt arising from his service, and Laban 
prepares the marriage feast. But, instead of rewarding Jacob with the maiden whom he has 
purchased, he adopts a subterfuge and gives Leah in the place of her sister. This was possible 
because by the oriental marriage custom the bride goes to the husband’s tent heavily veiled. Of 
course, Leah must have been a party to the fraud. Nor is it altogether surprising; for, while 
Jacob’s affection was for Rachel, it is evident that Leah loved Jacob. When the latter 
discovered the deception that had been practiced upon him, he was indignant and called Laban 
to account. But Laban excused himself on the ground that the custom of the country required 
the elder daughter’s marriage before that of the younger, and he proposed to make amends by 
offering the second daughter also for another seven years of service. Jacob agreed to that and 
took Rachel also. In a polygamous country there did not seem to be anything strange in the 
proceeding. But as we read the record we perceive that the marriage of the two sisters and the 
concubinage of the two handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah were the cause of unutterable heartache 
and misery to all concerned. The only relief to the sadness of the situation was the fruitfulness 
of Leah and the concubines, so that a troop of children came to play round the patriarch’s 
knees. As for Rachel, notwithstanding her beauty, and the love which Jacob bore her, she was 
haughty, high-tempered, jealous, and petulant, and, as if it were a judgment on her for these 
qualities, the time of her fruitfulness was long delayed. She had been married twenty-six years 
before Joseph was born — a period of long and hopeless waiting, repeating the experience over 
again of Sarah and Rebekah — and when the child is finally given it appears to be in answer 
to devout supplication. We need not pause at this point over the details of the family history. 
Suffice it to say that we have as the total outcome of Jacob’s marriages and his alliances with 
the concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah, twelve sons. One daughter, Dinah, is also mentioned 
because of certain historic relations to the patriarchal group; but, no doubt, other daughters 
of whom no mention was made were born. Indeed, there are two allusions to daughters. 1 But 
daughters were not considered of any account in the historic development of a family, because 
under the patriarchal system women belonged rather to their husband’s family than to the 
family of their father. 

The business of Jacob in Padan-aram was the care of the flocks and herds of Laban. It 
is not unlikely that he had, also, large commercial dealings. Evidently, under his thrifty and 
skillful management the Syrian found prosperity and profit. It was his intention to avail him¬ 
self to the full of Jacob’s ability and to leave him as little as possible for himself. No doubt 
Jacob had from the very beginning cherished the purpose of returning to the promised land, 
and he must have chafed uneasily as he saw that through Laban’s craft he was deprived of the 
means of setting up an independent household. After the birth of Joseph, Jacob besought his 

1 Genesis xlii, 35, xlvi, 7. 




POKTAELS. 


LEAH AND RACHEL 

























































192 


WEALTH OF JACOB—HE LEAVES IIARAN. 


father-in-law to let him depart; hut Laban, knowing how valuable Jacob’s services were to 
him, refused his consent. But he made a new bargain with Jacob and unintentionally, 
probably, put it within the means of Jacob to become independent. Not knowing how skillful 
Jacob was in the breeding and rearing of sheep and goats, he was ready to consent that only 
those that bore certain marks should be Jacob’s share. Under ordinary circumstances this 
would have been a small toll and the great increase would still have been Laban’s. A wide 
space was put between the flocks in the charge of Jacob and those under the care of Laban and 
his sons — a fact which shows the enormous increase that had come to Laban in consequence of 
Jacob’s energy. The separation helped Jacob’s purpose. He immediately instituted devices 
which brought the larger share of the increase of the healthy portion of the flocks to him, 
leaving only the smaller and poorer portions to Laban. By devoting himself thus with great 
assiduity to the task he had undertaken, it was not long before Jacob began to increase greatly 
in wealth and power. As soon as this fact was discovered it was very displeasing to Laban, 
and his sons as well. Notwithstanding he was of their kindred, and was allied to them by 
multiple marriages, they could not brook his prosperity. But Jacob kept on, as he had now a 
grand object that seemed to be worthy of all his energies; and not until he felt that he had 
acquired enough to carry him again into Canaan with dignity, and with such power that he 
need not fear to meet his brother, did he relax his efforts. 

Meanwhile the opposition of Laban and his sons had manifestly increased, and Jacob felt 
that the time had come for his departure. So, choosing the most favorable time of year, both 
for the driving of the flocks and for their sustenance by the way, he calls his wives to him in 
the field and unfolds his plans to them. Not relishing the treatment of their father to them¬ 
selves, they are only too ready to assent to the proposition to depart. Therefore the proper 
measures are taken. The flocks are sent forward under the care of the older sons of Jacob, 
some of whom are already grown to manhood. Everything is made ready for a flight that will 
put many days’ journey between them and their point of departure before the fact that they 
have gone at all shall become known to Laban. Then the movement begins and the sojourn 
of the Hebrews in Haran is ended forever. The time occupied by this sojourn is not easily 
computed ; but in the very nature of the case it must have been a long while. Sufficient time 
had elapsed not only to enrich Laban and secure a fortune for Jacob, but for the birth and 
rearing of a large family of children. Many of his sons at the time of his departure had 
already grown to manhood, and he served seven years before his marriage. It is difficult to 
see, therefore, how all this could be accomplished in a period less than forty years. In our 
English version there are two references by Jacob to a period of twenty years. A scrutiny of 
the original discloses that these references may be to two different twenties. Putting these 
twenties together, we have the requisite forty years, which is the shortest possible time for the 
accomplishment of the results that had been achieved when the great Hebrew patriarch sepa¬ 
rated permanently from his father-in-law, and returned again to Canaan for the enactment of 
the scenes which, to this day, we must regard as among the most memorable in the history of 
the chosen people. 











• £ . - - .v> 




' 


¥ ;A 




• •■ ' * 


JOSEPH'S DREAM 











































































































CHAPTER IX. 

JOSEPH SOLD INTO SLAVERY. 

1\yTANY important reflections are suggested by the return of Jacob to Canaan. There is one 
IH that must not he wholly overlooked. This return signalizes thecomplete and permanent 
separation between monotheism and polytheism. Abraham was called to go forth and become 
the founder of a new religion. He obeyed the call. Still, some communication was maintained 
between the migrating people and the old stock. But now, when Jacob takes his family and 
his substance and turns his face to the west, the sign is given for all the relations to cease. 
Henceforth the race is to be compacted and solidified through the descendants of Jacob, and 
the worship is to be of Eloliim, or Jehovah, only. To be sure Rachel, who may not have been 
fully converted to monotheism, stole and carried away in secret her father’s teraphim. This 
thing was done wholly without the knowledge or approval of Jacob, and upon his discovery of 
the images he promptly buried them. To him, scarcely less than to Moses, are we indebted for 
the command, “ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” With 
increasing fidelity to the end of his life he kept the vow he had made at Bethel. 

Turning now to Laban, we can imagine the consternation and anger with which he learned 
of the flight of Jacob. A space of forty miles separated the pasture grounds of Jacob from 
those of Laban. Borne days, therefore, must have elapsed — three days the record says — as 
Jacob kept his own counsel and only imparted his purpose to his wives when the plan was ripe 
for execution, before the tidings of the departure were carried to Laban. Preparation had 
probably been made by sending the flocks and herds far on, ostensibly to feed around the foot¬ 
hills of Western Syria. Then Jacob, gathering his stuff hastily together, mounts his wives and 
children upon camels and commences a rapid journey toward the land of his nativity. Before 
Laban could complete preparations for the pursuit Jacob was already a long distance on the 
road, so that, even by forced marches, Laban could not come up with him before he had passed 
beyond the jurisdiction within which he might compel his return. Jacob set his face toward 
the mountains of Gilead — the high rocky ridges that constituted the boundary between the 
Aramean territory and Canaan. Once there he was safe from the pursuit of Laban. This, 
apparently, he easily accomplished by reason of the distance traversed before his kinsman could 
begin the chase. The meeting between Jacob and Laban, if not friendly, is at least a meeting 
of treaty. Laban rehearses at length his grievances, under which there is for the most part a 
basis of truth. He claims that Jacob’s property is his property, and that his wives, their 
servants, and children are his. Under the patriarchal system, all this was strictly true. Jacob 
himself was but an adopted son, and he could, therefore, have neither property nor family that 
was absolutely his own. At the same time Laban seems to recognize that the longing of Jacob 
for his father’s house was natural, and if he were to pass out from under his authority, it would 
be only creditable to him that he should not go empty-handed. Therefore, he signifies his 
willingness to confirm him in his possessions and make a covenant with him that he will not 
pass beyond the boundaries of Gilead to molest him. The treaty having been made and 
celebrated with proper ceremonies, Laban kisses his children and departs again to his own 
country, while Jacob takes up his journey again toward Canaan. 

But, having escaped the danger that threatened in the rear, he now begins to contemplate 
the peril he is approaching. He remembers that, when he passed out of Canaan forty years 
before, he was fleeing from the wrath of his brother, Esau, who felt that he had suffered an 


194 







in 


11 




Wft\w 






mmmm 




JOSEPH SOLD BY HIS BRETHREN. 
























































































196 


RECONCILIATION OF ESAU AND JACOB. 


irreparable injury at his hands. He wonders now whether that anger has subsided, or whether, 
notwithstanding the lapse of years, Esau will seek to be avenged. As he goes forward he has 
some signs of angelic protection. The vision of heavenly ministration which comforted him 
long before at Bethel is repeated in a different form; and yet, not so much for his own sake and 
the sake of his property as for the sake of his wives and children, he is anxious to placate the 
heart of Esau and be reconciled to him. Therefore, he sends messengers before to announce his 
coming to his brother, and follows the herald by other messengers with rich presents from his 
numerous flocks and herds. Long ago, however, the fickle Esau had forgotten the affront that 
had been put upon him. Perhaps the oblivion of the unhappy event had been hastened by the 
fact that Jacob had gone forth with his staff only, and, as far as the patriarchal succession was 
concerned, Jacob had been so long absent that even that failed to make any impression upon 
him. He could only view the munificent presents of Jacob, the evidence of uncommon 
wealth, with astonishment. 

Before, however, Jacob beheld the face of his brother, there occurred one of the strangest 
episodes of his whole career. He had sent forward in the care of trusty servants the more 
vigorous of his flocks and herds. Those that were unsuited for fast travel remained behind, 
together with the women and young children. These Jacob had seen safely across the wady, or 
brook, as it is called in the English version. Returning, probably for a few last things, he was 
overtaken by darkness and was obliged to pass the night in the valley. Instead of finding a 
peaceful and refreshing slumber, he was forced to an all-night struggle with a strange visitor. 
All sorts of conjectures have been offered concerning this wrestler. Some have supposed this 
was the Almighty God in the form of a man. Some have maintained that this was the divine 
Son of God. Others have declared that it was an angel. Still others have thought that it was 
not a real person at all; that it was a spiritual struggle, induced first, perhaps, by a dream, and 
then by the consciousness of the sin of his life. All this, however, is conjecture. We have 
nothing but the record to guide us, and it is pretty hard to get out of the record more than it 
contains. That gives an account of a real struggle, with a palpable result. Indeed, the struggle 
had been so fierce that in the morning Jacob’s thigh was out of joint. But notwithstanding 
that fact Jacob had prevailed. It is clear, also, that he felt that his antagonist was endowed 
with mysterious power. He regarded .that struggle as a new vision, teaching him that God 
abides not only in the heavenly glory, but in the sweat and agony of daily toil. Therefore, he 
rises to a new consecration of patience that will not let him forget God even in the hour of 
humiliation and sorrow. This is what gives him his new name and secures for him a new 
blessing, higher and more precious than any that comes through worldly prosperity and 
happiness. In obedience to Jacob’s importunity, the stranger said: “ Thy name shall be called 
no more Jacob, but Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast 
prevailed.” With this new name, no longer as the supplanter, but as a veritable prince of 
righteousness, he goes forth to meet his brother. This is what his long years of alienage from 
his father’s house and hard discipline with Laban have wrought in his character. 

It is delightful to observe that the meeting with Esau is one of amity and affection. All 
vestiges of hostility and hatred appear to have vanished from the brother’s heart. He bids 
Jacob a cordial welcome to Canaan and urges him to accept his escort into the presence of his 
father. But Jacob excuses himself. He has under his immediate charge the more tender 
portion of the flocks and the women and children, and he must proceed slowly. Indeed, he 
is incapable of pursuing his journey by reason of his lameness. He remains, therefore, where 
he is at the forks of the river where there is both pasturage and water, and even builds booths 
for the shelter of the herds, which betokens a residence of some permanence. But when he is 
recovered from his lameness, he moves forward as far as Shechem, which was the first camping 
ground of Abraham when he came into Canaan. It is here that all the implements of the 



DIPPING JOSEPH S COAT IN THE BLOOD OF THE KID. 


H. VF.RNET. 
















198 


SEE CHE M PUNISHED—DEATH OF RACHEL. 


idolatrous Syrian worship are gathered together and buried. Here, also, he purchases a piece 
of ground for his tents and for an altar. This shows that the country was somewhat settled — 
to what extent we cannot tell, but probably from the nature of the event recorded as taking 
place here, not very numerously. Dinah, the only one of his daughters whose name finds 
mention in Scripture — although, as has been said, it is probable from certain statements that 
there were others — went out of the camp, probably in secret, to see the daughters of the land. 
She was beguiled or captured by the son of the chief man of the city and dishonored. This 
produced a crisis. Two of her brothers by the same mother, Simeon and Levi, felt themselves 
called upon to avenge the wrong that had been put upon her. Accordingly by a stratagem, 
aided no doubt by the more warlike portion of their father’s servants, they put to the sword the 
whole city, and either killed or captured the greater part of the inhabitants. This act naturally 
filled the mind of Jacob with consternation and horror. He believed that after such an outrage 
it would no longer be safe for him to remain in that place. It is likely that he feared, although 
his sons were victorious, either that the friends and allies of the defeated Shechemites would 
attempt to avenge the indignity that had been put upon them by reprisals, or that the surround¬ 
ing tribes, mistrusting the object of his advent into Canaan, would make war upon him for 
the purpose of exterminating him or driving him back into Syria. Gathering his possessions 
together he passed on to Bethel. His march was unmolested, the occupants of the land, 
perhaps, being filled with fear because of the relentless slaughter of the Shechemites. At 
Bethel he kept the vow which he had made to God when he beheld the vision of the angels 
ascending and descending between earth and heaven. Here Deborah, the beloved nurse and 
servant of Bebekah, died, and was buried under wliat was thenceforth called the oak of weeping. 
This circumstance leads to the conclusion that Jacob had already visited his father in Hebron 
and had brought Deborah back with him. No mention is made of the death of Rebekah, 
perhaps because many years had elapsed since the event occurred. It is impossible to suppress 
a feeling of sorrow that the woman who had sent him forth to her brother’s house to find a 
wife could not have survived to welcome him on his return to fulfill the destiny which she had 
been so important a human instrument in marking out for him. The stop at Bethel does not 
appear to have been for long. Evidently Jacob was pressing forward to get near to his father 
who still survived, although at a great age. On his way to Ephrath, which was as near as he 
could come with his immense retinue to Hebron, when he had reached Bethlehem, Rachel 
travailed and died in giving birth to Benjamin. Thus the woman whom he had gone out of 
his father’s house to seek, whom he had loved with tender and unfaltering devotion for more 
than forty years, was never to receive the welcome of that house.. Truly the afflictions of Jacob 
were beginning to multiply, and were fast becoming as numerous as his blessings. But he had 
learned, through fiery discipline and trial, to believe in God in sorrow as well as in joy. This 
was a mighty step forward, not only for Jacob, but for the human race. 

Isaac died at 180, when Jacob must have been 120. He was buried by his sons, Esau and 
Jacob, in the cave of Machpelah, where had already been buried Abraham, and Sarah, and 
Rebekah. To this august list in due time was to be added the bones of Leah and Jacob’s own 
body, embalmed in Egypt and borne thither by a mighty caravan with all the pageantry and 
pomp that could attend the burial of a prince. But a dozen years before the death of Isaac 
there occurred an event of far greater significance to Jacob and the people that were to bear 
his name. The firstborn of Rachel’s children, when Jacob came to Ephrath, was a lad of 
seventeen. As the child of his first and only deep love, he was exceedingly precious, and was 
distinguished in many ways above the children of Leah and. the concubines. Doubtless it 
seemed to the other sons that his father already designed him for the patriarchal succession. 
This of itself would be sufficient to excite their animosity toward him. There were doubtless 
other reasons for their jealousy. One of the worst phases of polygamy is that the children 



JOSEPH’S BRETHREN SHOWING THE COAT OF MANY COLORS 
































































































































































































JOSEPH BETRAYED BY HIS BRETHREN. 


200 

invariably champion the cause of their respective mothers. We know that Leah, at least, had 
great cause of enmity toward Rachel, and it is altogether likely that both the concubines had an 
even stronger reason to hate the haughty mistress of Jacob’s affection; and, while they might be 
very cautious about manifesting their animosity openly, their children would not be so back¬ 
ward. But in addition to all these reasons there was another, still more potent. Whoever 
reads the story with any attentiveness must see that Joseph was an uncommon youth. He was 
already engaged in those meditations which are the sure tokens of genius. He was superior to 
his brethren, not only in the affection of his father, but in his intellectual endowment. The 
vision that he had of his brethren doing obeisance to him was only the expression of a preemi¬ 
nence which they must have recognized already. It is scarcely to be wondered at that his 
brethren should have formed a conspiracy to kill him. Of course, it was a horrible crime; 
but we have already had some taste of the bloodthirstiness and relentless cruelty of at least a 
portion of Jacob’s children, who lived in an age in which fratricide was common, and very 
lightly regarded if the victim were born from a different mother. Every indication of the 
superiority of Joseph only whetted their wrath toward him. It is said “they could not speak 
peaceably unto him,” and as their hatred grew they formed a conspiracy to put him to death. 
His father having sent him to Shechem, where they were feeding the flocks, to make inquiries 
concerning them and bring him tidings, they proceed to put their plot into execution. Had it 
not been for Reuben, who, whatever other faults he had, was not bloodthirsty, Joseph would 
have been murdered ruthlessly. But through Reuben’s entreaties he was merely stripped of 
his coat of many colors, which his father had given him as a token of his special affection, and 
cast into an empty cistern that was in the field with the intention, doubtless, of leaving him to 
perish with hunger, although it would seem that Reuben cherished the purpose of rescuing 
him. In the absence, however, of Reuben, the others, at the suggestion of Judah, concluded to 
sell him as a slave to a company of Ishmaelite merchants who were going down into Egypt. 
This was done for twenty pieces — probably shekels — of silver, equivalent to about twelve 
dollars of our money. Then the coat which they 'had taken from him was dipped in the blood 
of a kid, and taken to his father as the proof that his son had been killed by an evil beast. 
Jacob does not appear to have suspected the brethren of Joseph, and he accepted the bloody 
garment as adequate proof of the death of Joseph. He said, “It is my son’s coat; an evil beast 
hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces. And Jacob rent his clothes, and 
put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his 
daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go 
down into the grave unto my son mourning.” Surely there is no grander touch of human 
nature than this in all history. Human ingenuity could not invent anything that would afford 
such commanding and invincible proof of the genuineness of the story. 

At this point the interest of the narrative shifts. Instructive accounts of other members 
of the patriarchal family intervene. But the real interest centers hereafter in Joseph. The 
mind is drawn irresistibly to follow the fortunes of the slave lad, in the hands of an alien race, 
going to do service in a strange land. What an awful thing that one born to freedom and high 
privilege should be sold like an ox! But such was oriental slavery. Such is slavery every¬ 
where. There is this to be said of ancient slavery in general, however, and of oriental slavery 
in particular: The door to freedom was not absolutely shut. The fact that one was a slave 
was no bar to even the highest station, provided one had the genius for it. We wonder what 
was in the mind of the Hebrew youth as he found himself a bondman going down to Egypt. 
Doubtless he thought that preferable to being in the hands of his cruel brethren. It is, 
moreover, true of all great souls that they are indifferent to their surroundings. As far as the 
record goes the condition of Joseph from the moment of his captivity onward seems to have 
been one of perfect serenity. On the arrival of the caravan in Egypt Joseph was sold to 


IMPRISONMENT AND EXALTATION OF JOSEPH. 


201 


Potiphar, a high officer of the court, and appears to have been almost immediately placed in 
charge of his household. At first we are disposed to marvel at that. But perhaps it is not so 
strange after all. It has been generally supposed that the time of Joseph’s arrival in Egypt 
was during the reign of the last of the Hyksos, or shepherd kings. These kings were probably 
of Aramean descent, very closely resembling Hebrews in their physical characteristics, and, 
some have thought, in their language. As far as race went, therefore, Joseph was under no 
disability. Possibly the Islimaelites may have told how they came into possession of this slave. 
At all events he probably showed that he was well born and bred. Undoubtedly he mani¬ 
fested, even in his servitude, some of those rare executive abilities for which in mature life he 
was so distinguished. Potiphar made him his steward and intrusted him with everything. He 
used the trust so well that all the business of Potiphar prospered in his hand. 

This continued until Potipliar’s wife falsely accused him of attempting upon her an 
infamous crime. Whereupon he was thrown into prison. There is ground for believing that 
Potiphar distrusted the accusation of his wife against Joseph, inasmuch as he exalted him in the 
prison, and gave him charge of all the prisoners. Here, then, again we have evidence that 
great minds are but slightly affected by their surroundings. Genius will manifest itself in 
slavery and in prison. There are no bars that can circumscribe or confine the expanding and 
soaring mind. With the coming into the prison of high officers of Pharaoh, Joseph had an 
opportunity through the interpretation of their dreams to convey, though after the lapse of 
years, to Pharaoh what manner of man he was. The time came when Pharaoh sorely needed 
someone to interpret a dream that was troubling him greatly. The wisest men of the realm 
had tried it and failed signally. Then it was that the chief butler remembered the service that 
Joseph had rendered to him when he was in great need. He told the story to his royal master 
and Joseph was immediately brought forth from the prison to give that wonderful interpretation 
which made him prime minister of Egypt, with power to introduce a policy of taxation which 
changed the constitution of the realm. Here certainly was a marvelous exaltation — a young 
man lifted from slavery and prison to be the Second person in the mightiest empire on the face 
of the earth! The act of Pharaoh, however, proved to be one not merely of caprice. The 
Hebrew boy showed that he was worthy of the vast responsibility and power that had been 
placed in his hands. He saw at a glance the danger that threatened Egypt. He devised the 
measures that were necessary to avert it. With plenty of practical wisdom such as belongs only 
to the highest order of statesmanship, he proceeded to put those measures into execution. With 
unparalleled foresight he began to fortify the State against the long famine which he knew 
was sure to come; and when his brethren, who, in their hatred, had tried to destroy him, next 
saw him, he was so installed and intrenched in the confidence and affection of Pharaoh that 
there was none mightier than he in all the world. 


CHAPTER X. 

JOSEPH’S CHARACTER-ARRIVAL OF HIS BRETHREN-COMING OF JACOB. 


J OSEPH was thirty years old when he came into power in Egypt. Supposing him to have 
been seventeen when he was sold into slavery, he must have been thirteen years in servi¬ 
tude. He was a devout soul, true to the religion of his father. He attributed everything in 
his career to God. He looked to God for counsel, and he knew that God guided him in all 
things. Reading the story as we do at this distance in time, we see, perhaps, even more clearly 
than he could the ruling hand of divine providence in making the wrath of his brethren a testi¬ 
mony of God’s righteousness, and lifting him from a position of servitude to almost unlimited 
sway in Egypt. It is inherently incredible that such results, with such far-reaching and benefi¬ 
cent consequences, could have been accomplished by human ability alone, however transcendent. 
But to say this does not derogate from the extraordinary acumen of Joseph. He was in every 
way fitted by natural endowment, and by discipline and training, for the great responsibility he 
was called upon to assume. Even in his childhood he gave evidence of uncommon genius. 
His brethren called him a “ dreamer ” by reason of his meditative and prophetic spirit. Even 
then he was forecasting the future; even then he saw how his life, by reason of certain qualities 
that were stamped upon his mind, was separated from and lifted above the common life around 
him. Unquestionably these qualities were, to some extent, developed by suffering and by the 
exercise of that self-reliance he was compelled to exhibit in the difficult and trying positions in 
which he was placed as the servant of Potiphar; so that, in the supreme crisis of his life, when 
he was summoned into the presence of Pharaoh, he could, with the aid of the divine counsel, 
not merely interpret a dream, but could show a larger wisdom, a profounder knowledge of 
statecraft, than the most learned, experienced, and trusted of the Egyptians. 

Instantly, therefore, Pharaoh saw that this was the man of his counsel — the man for the 
office and the hour — to institute and carry to perfection the reforms that were essential to 
the preservation of the empire. With a boldness such as is not often manifested by rulers in 
this world, Pharaoh resolved to make him the instrument of the work he had to do; and, 
that there might be no possibility of failure, he placed in his hands unlimited authority to 
carry out his purposes. Moreover, in actual trial Joseph showed that he had the qualities for 
which his master had given him credit. The details of the policy inaugurated by him are not, 
as far as we know, given in the Scripture or elsewhere. What the mummy cases and monu¬ 
ments yet to be unearthed have to reveal no one can tell. All we know is that this new 
minister, chosen and exalted by Pharaoh, went forward, laying a new and heavier tribute upon 
the people — which does not seem to have been hard for them to bear, by reason of the great 
harvests and the consequent prosperity of the nation — and laying up a store against the time 
of predicted famine. The means he adopted were so wise, so salutary, and so effective that the 
course could but command the approval and even the admiration of Pharaoh. Indeed, we are 
compelled to believe from the way the account runs that the more the monarch knew his 
minister the more he esteemed him. As far as appears during the whole of the life of either of 
them, nothing occurred to interrupt the harmony of their relations, or to weaken the confidence 
of the monarch in Joseph. They seem to have been even on terms of intimate and close 
friendship. Nothing that Joseph could ask was withheld. Pharaoh was instrumental in 
assisting him to enter into marriage relations with an Egyptian woman of high family. All 


202 











mmmm 








:;:!;:!::;S;:":;««55Saii^. 




JOSEPH INTERPRETING PHARAOH’S DREAM. 




























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































204 


STATECRAFT OF JOSEPH. 


this is testimony of the strongest sort to the extraordinary character of Joseph as a statesman 
and a man. In the ranks of great men of the ages, probably few have equaled and perhaps 
none have ever surpassed him. 

Of course, Joseph’s policy was most triumphantly vindicated by the coming on ot the 
years of the famine as he had predicted. As the years went by his astuteness was attested still 
further when it was seen that through his foresight Pharaoh was able not only to preserve the 
lives of the people but to secure such concessions from them in regard to their estates as would 
strengthen and confirm his power, weakening the authority of the nobles and petty princes and 
making the people directly dependent upon him. Pharaoh, therefore, had reason for the deepest 
gratitude and most abiding affection for Joseph. It is conjectured by many authorities that the 
monarch under whom Joseph wrought was the one who planned and carried to execution the 
system of dams and other devices designed to regulate the flow of the Nile. It is not improb¬ 
able that the suggestion of these works came from Joseph himself, and perhaps he was the 
officer intrusted with their construction. Certainly no one would be more likely than he to 
recognize the causes of the protracted droughts to which Egypt was periodically subject, or to 
conceive of the measures requisite to prevent their recurrence; undoubtedly the prediction of 
years of drought was based, to some extent, on the past experience of the nation; and it is but 
reasonable to suppose that the man who had the capacity of such wide observation and large 
induction would be the one of all others best fitted to consider the means of prevention. More¬ 
over, having, as the minister both of agriculture and finance during the years of the nation’s 
plenty and prosperity, gathered together and compacted the surplus wealth of the nation, he 
would be the one vested with the resources necessary for the inception and carrying out of so 
vast an undertaking. The strongest a priori considerations, therefore, point to this reign, and 
even to this extraordinary man, for the conception and consummation of the improvement that 
was of such immense and far-reaching consequence to the prosperity of Egypt. But for the 
confirmation of these conceptions we shall he compelled to wait for what the researches and 
discoveries of scholars may reveal to us. The wreath which the record alone puts upon the 
brow of Joseph is ample for his future and abiding fame. By appeal simply to the record, we 
see that he was not only the savior of Egypt but of other peoples as well. We are told that 
“ the famine was over the face of the earth,” and that, besides the Egyptians, “ all countries 
came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.” 
The primary cause of the dearth in Egypt was, of course, the failure of moisture in the moun¬ 
tains from which the Nile receives its supply of water. Such a cause would, in the nature of 
the case, be widespread in its operation. A failure of moisture there would be accompanied by 
its failure in a much wider area; so that we perceive that people far removed from the borders 
of Egypt would in the same manner, and perhaps to an even greater extent, suffer from the 
effects of the drought. Still further, as this drought was a protracted one, confined in its opera¬ 
tion not to a single year, but spread over several years, the suffering would become widespread 
and terrible, causing the surrounding countries to look to Egypt for relief. It was to be 
expected, therefore, that Canaan would be affected with the other countries. Indeed, Canaan 
often suffered from an insufficient supply of moisture. Abraham had been compelled to go 
down into Egypt on account of famine in Canaan. Isaac had been driven as far south as 
Gerah to find water and forage, and would have gone into Egypt had he not been restrained 
by the divine hand. It is not strange, therefore, that Jacob should have turned in the same 
direction, in his distress, for relief. 

It will not be without profit to go back a little in our narration and see how it has fared 
with the patriarch since Joseph was taken from him. At first, as we have seen, his sojourn was 
at Ephrath. Here, within a convenient distance of his father’s abode, he busied himself with 
the care of his flocks and herds, receiving the active assistance of his sons. His object was 


SAD YEARS OF JACOB. 


205 


evidently to strengthen and compact his fortunes so as to make ample provision for his 
numerous family. In due time Isaac died and “was gathered to his fathers.” Then Esau, 
who had for the most part resided with his father, removed to the region of Mount Seir, and 
Jacob removed to Hebron. What was done with Isaac’s possessions the record does not state. 
Whether they were divided between Esau and Jacob, or whether the fact that they had fallen 
mainly to Jacob was the principal reason for his going to Hebron to reside, we cannot tell. But 
we do know that the years were full of sorrow for the patriarch. The loss of Rachel had filled 
the whole remainder of his life with sadness. The loss of Joseph he felt to be irreparable. 
Then, too, somewhere in these years, not only Isaac, but Leah, to whom he doubtless turned 
with more affection after the death of Rachel, died and was buried; so that he must have felt 
that he was in a passing world. In addition to this, he must have been troubled more or less 
about the succession, and was casting about in his own mind to determine which of his remain¬ 
ing sons was best fitted for the great trust. There is reason for believing that the sons, after 
their great crime, and especially after observing the terrible sorrow it had produced in their 
father, were somewhat chastened and were more disposed to do what they could to lighten his 
burdens. Hence there was some compensation in his manifold afflictions. 

Then came the famine, and Jacob saw the fruit of all his years of toil and anguish likely 
to vanish away. The flocks and herds were like to die for want of sustenance. Sickness, which 
is one of the inseparable accompaniments of famine, was doubtless beginning to assail his 
servants, and possibly his children. The sons were beginning to “ look one upon another ” with 
a kind of superstitious dread. They were beginning to feel that a terrible calamity — perhaps 
total extinction — was impending over them. But Jacob’s heart never failed in emergencies. 
He had the quality of all great souls, which triumph in adversity. The more terrible the 1 
threatened evil, the more irresistibly his courage rises to meet and overcome it. He who had 
wrestled all night with the mysterious stranger at Peniel and come off* victorious, although he 
carried marks of the conflict that would follow him to his grave, was not likely to be dismayed 
by famine. So when he sees the anxiety of his sons he bids them go down into Egypt, where 
there is still an abundance, and buy food for their households. 

In obedience to their father’s injunction, all the sons except Benjamin went down to Egypt. 
Benjamin was kept at home to comfort and care for his father. Since the loss of Joseph the 
heart of Jacob had turned with increasing fondness to the only remaining child of Rachel. He 
did not feel, therefore, that he could quite spare Benjamin for so long and dangerous an expedi¬ 
tion. The question may arise why it was necessary for so many as ten to go. The answer is 
plainly that the number of people to be relieved, not to speak of the flocks and herds, was very 
great, requiring a large supply of grain — much larger, no doubt, than appears from a casual 
reading of the record. It was unquestionably the large and important caravan coming from a 
distant country like Canaan that secured an audience with the minister of the realm. Possibly 
he had been expecting their advent, and was on the lookout for them. As soon as they came 
into his presence he knew them. They had changed but little. He had grown from a mere 
lad to a man in middle life. Clad, too, in the robes of high office there would be nothing in his 
appearance to suggest to them the stripling whom they had sold to the Ishmaelites fifteen years 
before. As they bowed in abject humility before him he was reminded of his dream in Canaan 
for which they had upbraided him. Yet in a measure his heart yearned toward them. He was 
impatient to get tidings of his father and his younger brother. By harsh treatment and 
compelling them to give an account of themselves he learns what he desires to know—that his 
father is still alive and that Benjamin is the stay and comfort of his old age. Then, while he 
grants their request for food, he insists on keeping one of their number as a hostage that the 
younger brother shall be brought down. Evidently his desire is to see Benjamin his own 
mother’s son. But while he seems to be so harsh and relentless, in reality he is very tender, 


206 


JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN. 


concealing the money which they had brought to pay for their food in the grain which they 
were to carry back. 

Having left Simeon behind them in prison, and being commanded to fetch Benjamin, they 
returned with heavy and downcast spirits. When they reported to Jacob what had befallen 
them he was filled with consternation. But he could not part with Benjamin. Not until the 
famine began to press sorely again would he even discuss the subject with his sons. Indeed 
the cry he uttered when they proposed to take Benjamin and go down again must have cut 
them to the quick. “ Me have ye bereaved of my children : Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, 
and ye will take Benjamin away: all these things are against me.” Still the exigency became 
more and more imperative. “ The famine was sore in the land.” Though he had resolved that 
Benjamin should not go down with them, the time came when Jacob was forced to consider the 
question. Indeed, it was getting to be a matter of life and death. While there was appar¬ 
ently some food for the live stock, enough to keep them from perishing altogether, yet for 
human beings there was nothing. The crops had failed and food must be had. Jacob, there¬ 
fore, urges his sons to go down again. But they are resolute, because they are sure it will be a 
hopeless journey unless they can take Benjamin. 

After a feeble opposition Jacob accepts the inevitable, and the brethren go down again, 
taking their youngest brother with them. It is pretty evident that Joseph had awaited their 
coming with some impatience. The eagerness with which he made arrangements to receive 
them at his own house shows how his mind had dwelt on the reception of Benjamin. Indeed, 
he finds it hard to suppress his feelings in their presence. The uneasiness of their consciences, 
on account of the great wrong they had done to him so many years before, takes away all 
resentment from his mind. He distinguishes Benjamin in so marked a manner above all the 
rest that it is a marvel that some hint of his identity did not flash upon them. But apparently 
they had not the faintest suspicion that it was Joseph. How strange it must have seemed to 
him to hear them talking in his own vernacular of himself, his father, and all their home affairs 
without once imagining that he could understand them! But he restrained himself and made 
no sign. He preferred, in true oriental taste, to make the announcement in a more dramatic 
fashion. He orders his steward to conceal his drinking cup in Benjamin’s sack and when the 
brethren are well on their journey he sends after them and charges them with theft. They, of 
course, are indignant, and make some very rash promises in case it shall be found in the effects 
of any one of them. A search, of course, reveals it with Benjamin. Now they are completely 
undone, and return to the house of the minister with hearts ready to break. When it is 
proposed by Joseph to retain Benjamin in custody because of the theft, then they unfold the 
whole story of their life, showing how deep their contrition is for their great sin, how they have 
sought to make amends for it by superior devotion to their father, and how deeply they are 
troubled, not so much by what has befallen themselves as by the sorrow that will come to him. 
Then Joseph can restrain himself no longer, but, sending out all the attendants from the room, 
he makes known to them that he is Joseph. Naturally they are more troubled than ever, for 
now they are in the presence of the man who has an unbounded right to punish them. But he 
reassures them, saying, “ Be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for 
God did send me before you to preserve life. For these two years hath the famine been in the 
land ; and yet there are five years, in the which there shall neither be earing nor harvest. And 
God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by 
a great deliverance. So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God.” How splendid is 
nol only the magnanimity of this man, but his faith in the one living and true God! It 
is hardly the voice of human wisdom speaking in him, but the voice of prophecy, as if his 
tongue had been touched by a living coal from the heavenly altar. The strange worship of the 
Egyptians, though he had married the daughter of a priest, had not turned him from the 


JACOB DESCENDS INTO EGYPT. 


207 


simple faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but there, in a strange land, far from his kindred 
and his father’s house, he was true to the religion which Abraham had been called from Ur of 
the Chaldees to set up and maintain, and which he himself had received as the grandest 
inheritance of that majestic line of patriarchs. 

But now he bids them hasten and be gone. The eagerness which he before had to see 
Benjamin is intensified to see his father. He bids them report to Jacob his state and power 
in Egypt, and urge him to come with all speed, disregarding his substance, because out of the 
abundance with which Pharaoh has rewarded him he can supply all his wants. With what 
feelings of mingled shame, humility, and joy they must have taken that journey back to 
Canaan! Now they must make known to their father, who had never suspected them of wrong¬ 
doing, their perfidy. Now their consciences are smarting for the evil they have done. There is 
no more striking instance, in the Bible or elsewhere, of the certainty and terribleness of retribu¬ 
tion. “ Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.” We may remember 
in this connection that not only in the hour of Joseph’s revelation to them, but later on when 
Jacob was dead, the consciousness of the wrong they had done to their brother revived and 
overcame them in his presence, showing that a wound had been imprinted upon their spirits 
which time was almost powerless to heal. At the same time there was a surpassing joy in their 
hearts because Joseph had not shown any resentment to them, because they were going to save 
their families and their flocks and herds from destruction, and, above all, because they were 
carrying to their father the tidings that Joseph was alive. One can hardly doubt that, when 
they thought of the transport of delight that would take possession of Jacob as they should 
break the news to him, they could scarcely keep their feet from flying over the ground. The 
record, however, gives us no details. We are told in the briefest possible terms that they went 
back to Canaan. Still the Scripture does not fail to tell us that, when they reported to Jacob 
that Joseph was alive and that he was ruler over all Egypt, the father could not believe their 
report. It was only when they had told him their story with particularity of detail that he was 
convinced. Then his soul overflows, and his joy breaks forth like a song of triumph. “ It is 
enough ; Joseph, my son, is yet alive; I will go down and see him before I die.” Then prepa¬ 
rations for the journey were made. The several families and all their belongings were gathered 
together and all went forth on what may well be called a new migration. For, though Jacob 
called it a sojourn, and doubtless thought it was to be only for a few years, centuries were really 
to elapse before any of the stock of Israel should again see Canaan. The steps of the company 
were directed to Goshen, a rich pasture ground on the northeasterly side of the Nile, and there 
Joseph went in his chariot to meet his father. 


CHAPTER XI. 


JACOB AND PHARAOH. 

rPHE land of Goshen was well adapted to grazing. Notwithstanding the drought which 
-L was prevailing, there was much low ground in that region that yielded a coarse herbage 
that would sustain the flocks. It was, moreover, an unsettled country, and there was room in 
abundance, both for the animals and the people. There were other reasons for not taking the 
company of Israelites into the more settled parts of Egypt. A great prejudice — growing, per¬ 
haps, out of the fact that the reigning dynasty, which was a usurping dynasty, belonged to the 
shepherd race —existed against shepherds. For some reason Pharaoh does not seem to have 
shared the prejudice of the Egyptian people. It is hard to account for this except on the 
ground that he inherited a different tradition and belonged to a different race from the Egyp¬ 
tians. At all events Pharaoh desired to see Jacob. This may have been an act of courtesy to 
his prime minister. But it is more likely that some fame of Jacob had reached his ear and he 
desired to see him and perhaps talk with him. So Jacob is sent for to come into the presence 
of the monarch of Egypt. One can hardly repress a smile as he detects in the narrative a 
kind of condescension on the part of Pharaoh. Doubtless there seemed to be a wide disparity 
between them. Pharaoh ruled over the greatest empire in the world, and his word was law 
everywhere within his dominions. Jacob was only a humble Canaanitish shepherd. But the 
really great man, the mighty prince who had power with God and with men, was Jacob. The 
very name of the Pharaoh has perished, and the wisest scholars are still in doubt as to the 
dynasty to which he belonged. But the memory of Jacob is green. Wherever man worships 
Jehovah his name is revered, while one of the most remarkable races the world has ever seen 
traces with pride its lineage from him. Instructed by Joseph beforehand how to behave and 
what to say, Jacob, when asked, gives some account of his life and blesses Pharaoh twice over 
and goes out. Pharaoh is evidently well pleased with Jacob and his sons, and readily not only 
grants them permission to take up their abode in Goshen, but requests that the more capable 
among them be appointed to have charge of the royal herds. Thus begins the long residence 
of the chosen people in Egypt which is to end only when Moses shall lead them forth from 
bondage to freedom. 

The history of Jacob and his sons is now drawing to a close. Indeed, we may conceive 
that in the main the great patriarchal mission had been fulfilled. It is exceedingly grateful 
to feel, also, that after all his trials he was to have a long season of profound peace. The 
children of Jacob, if they reflected at all, must have seen that by the over-ruling power of 
Jehovah, the evil which they meant had been turned to good. It must have been a joy to 
them to witness the comfort and happiness of their father as he drew near to the end of life. 
To be there so near his favorite son, to live under his protection and to observe his exaltation 
and power, must have afforded him a satisfaction such as few men in this world have ever been 
privileged to feel. He richly merited it, too, after all his years of suffering and sorrow. No 
doubt the growth of the family in Goshen was rapid. Though it was not the part of Egypt 
best adapted to the more settled forms of agriculture, it was, as has been said, well suited to 
grazing, and the flocks and herds would naturally multiply rapidly. Being, also, near a great 
market, the breeding operations must have been a source of profit. The increase of the popula¬ 
tion must also have been very marked. Indeed, it was no small company of people that went 
down with Jacob into Egypt. The record mentions nearly seventy. But this enumeration 


308 








ISRAEL IN GOSHEN—TOMB OF JACOB. 


209 


embraces mainly the male descendants of Jacob — only two or three women find any mention 
whatever. Nearly all these males were married and brought their wives with them. More¬ 
over, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that Jacob had not as many female descendants as male. 
But these could not have constituted the whole body of people that went with the patriarch to 
settle in Goshen. We must not forget the great body of servants, who spoke the same language 
and were largely of the same blood. If Abraham, in his time, could arm 300 men “ born in his 
house,” how can we well suppose that Jacob was the head of a smaller tribe than his grand¬ 
father ? It is impossible to account for the princely character ascribed to Jacob except on the 
supposition that he was the head of a numerous band. The term Israel, as applied to the 
people, meant a great deal even then. Nor can it be inferred that all the people of kindred 
speech and blood came down with Jacob from Canaan. We know to the contrary. There 
were the descendants of both Ishmael and Esau, in great numbers, left behind. Any of these 
coming down to Egypt would naturally come through the land of Goshen. Thus the great 
Hebrew colony would be in the way of important augmentation, so that in the very lifetime of 
Jacob there must have been a vast expansion of the population, justifying in a purely worldly 
sense the high honor that was bestowed upon him as a prince at his death. Those seventeen 
years of Jacob in the land which Pharaoh had assigned to him were of the highest significance, 
and must have afforded to the brethren of Joseph a lesson of the profoundest meaning. They 
must have felt that, indeed, a nation was growing up that would bear the name of their father, 
and would have an important part to play in the history of the world. It is unlikely, however, 
that any but Jacob himself realized the religious import of what was going on. He doubtless 
meditated deeply upon it. With prophetic vision he saw much of what was to be. He foresaw 
something of the bondage that was coming, and understood the conflicts and trials through 
which the Hebrew race was to attain its glory. He recognized, as no one else could, that the 
hand of God was not only in his own life, but in the life of the people, to the end that the 
blessing promised to Abraham, and repeated to Isaac and himself, might be fulfilled. There 
are some indications that he had even a Messianic forecast and conviction. He never lost sight 
of Canaan as the ultimate home of the people, as the place where the ultimate glory of Israel 
was to be achieved and where the promise of God to him and his ancestors was to be fully 
entered into. 

Accordingly, as Jacob’s strength failed him and the time was manifestly drawing near 
when he must die, he sent for Joseph. The desire of his heart was not to be buried in Egypt. 
Following a great instinct of our nature he wanted to appoint the place where his bones should 
finally repose. There was the tomb of his fathers in Hebron, the field, and the cave therein, 
which Abraham bought of Ephron the Hittite for a burial place for Sarah, and which was the 
only piece of ground which Abraham ever owned in the land that had been given by divine 
promise to him and his seed after him forever. In that tomb were buried Abraham anti Sarah, 
Isaac and Rebekah and Leah, and Jacob desired to lie beside his kindred. Possibly there may 
have been a higher reason in the divine purpose. Jacob’s body was to be embalmed after the 
manner of the Egyptians. If that body has lain undisturbed where it was deposited by Joseph 
and his brethren the world may yet behold the face of the great patriarch, as it has looked upon 
the face of Rameses II., the great Pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites, and who, by the 
cruelties he instituted, compelled them to seek once more the Canaan of their promise. It 
is impossible, of course, to tell what the Mosque at Hebron covers. In view of the ages of 
violence that intervened between the burial of Jacob and the setting up of a stable government 
in Palestine there is every possibility — perhaps probability — that the tomb has been rifled. 
Still, there is also the possibility that the graves have been undisturbed, and if so, when that 
territory shall come under the control of Christian powers, there is awaiting the supreme 
moment of discovery a contribution to history and archaeology surpassing anything that has 


210 


DEATH AND BURIAL OF JACOB. 


yet been discovered. Think wliat it would be to look into the mummy case of Jacob and to 
read the mystic symbols inscribed upon it by order of his almost royal son! There is not an 
archaeologist alive who would not give the best years of his life for such a privilege. 

But putting all this aside, for reasons that are perfectly natural Jacob desired to be laid in 
death in the cave of Machpelah. As the time of his departure drew near he sent for Joseph, 
and Joseph came. We can imagine him coming in royal state, in a chariot such as we see 
figured upon the monuments. A retinue of servants undoubtedly accompanied him, and very 
likely, also, an escort of soldiers. His coming must have been an event in Goshen, and 
whenever liis brethren saw his glittering equipage they must have remembered the dream in 
which their sheaves bowed down and did obeisance to the sheaf of Joseph. On his arrival in 
his father’s chamber, Jacob makes known to his son his last wishes and said unto him, “ If 
now I have found grace in thy sight, put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, and deal 
kindly and truly with me; bury me not, I pray thee, in Egypt. But I will lie with my fathers, 
and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying place. And he said, I 
will do as thou hast said. And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel 
bowed himself upon the bed’s head.” This, however, was not the last interview of the patri¬ 
arch with Rachel’s elder son. Some time probably intervened between this vow of Joseph and 
the final scene in Jacob’s chamber, when, after setting Ephraim the younger of Joseph’s 
children above Manasseh, and after blessing Joseph and giving him above his brethren as a 
portion the field of Shechem, he called unto him his sons, and said “ Gather yourselves 
together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.” This was the last 
and most impressive of all the colloquies of Jacob with his descendants. Indeed, the prophecies 
which he then uttered are among the loftiest and most impressive of the recorded utterances of 
man. Though Jacob is in the last extremity of life he showed his sense of his son’s dignity by 
strengthening himself and sitting upon the bed to receive him. Then he proceeds, in prophetic 
language, not only to sketch the characters of his several sons, but to point out the career which 
is to be achieved by their descendants. The most remarkable of these prophecies is that 
relating to Judah, the fourth son of Leah. “ Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: 
thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before 
thee. Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he 
couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up ? The scepter shall not depart 
from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the 
gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice 
vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: his eyes shall be 
red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.” Whether Jacob was fully conscious of the 
import of his words or not, there is not in the Old Testament a passage of clearer, stronger or 
more emphatic Messianic intent than this. “ And when Jacob had made an end of command¬ 
ing his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered 
unto his people. And Joseph fell upon his father’s face, and wept upon him, and kissed him.” 
Then the process of embalming the body, occupying forty days, took place. When that was 
completed the funeral procession was prepared. “ The asses and camels of the pastoral tribe,” 
says Dean Stanley, “ mingled with the chariots and horsemen characteristic of Egypt.” A 
martial escort such as would one day accompany the remains of Pharaoh himself to their 
resting place in pyramid or rock-hewn tomb, began its long march from Egypt to the banks 
of the Jordan bearing the dust of Israel, “ the prince of God ”; and for the last time the 
Israelites looked upon the familiar scenes of the promised land until, centuries after, led by 
Joshua, their posterity should come to take possession of it and build therein a nation. 

At this point we might very properly draw the curtain, having followed the story of the 
patriarchs from that point where Abraham was called to part from his kindred and his father’s 


BEGINNING OF THE HEBREW OPPRESSION. 


211 


house, that he might set up an altar of worship to the one living and true God, to the final 
gathering in of Jacob. Indeed, there is not much more to tell. On the death of Jacob, the 
fears of the brethren naturally revived once more. Now that their father is no longer present 
to plead their cause, Joseph may call them to account for the evil they did. But he reassures 
them again that God was in the event, directing and guiding it for a great and noble end. 
Moreover, he gives evidence that he is a true Israelite and not an Egyptian, by exacting from 
them a promise that his bones shall be carried up to Canaan when their posterity shall go up to 
enter into their great inheritance. Joseph’s life was prolonged after his father’s death for fifty 
years, during which time his brethren prospered under his protection, and the colony grew and 
multiplied amazingly. Wliat happened after that no man can now tell. But it is pretty well 
understood that about this time a revolution occurred in Egypt. The dynasty to which the 
Pharaoh who befriended Joseph belonged was overthrown and there succeeded a new dynasty, 
which did not recognize the obligation of Egypt to Joseph for his industrial wisdom and fore¬ 
sight, his financial policy, and his marvelous system of public works. Nay, if, as is now 
commonly supposed, the Pharaoh who gave audience to Jacob and showed no resentment when 
he told him that the business of himself and his brethren was about cattle, belonged to the 
Hyksos dynasty, or, in other words, to the Hittite race, nothing would be more natural than 
that the new occupants of the throne should identify the Goshen colony with them, coming as 
they did from the same general region of country and speaking, perhaps, a kindred language. 
That was how, it is most likely, the oppression began, gradually, at first, by a curtailment of 
privileges and by a displacement from a post of honor to one of contempt, but growing more 
insulting and onerous from year to year and from generation to generation, until their com¬ 
plete enslavement was effected. Bo slowly was the pressure brought to bear upon them that no 
restraint was put upon the fecundity of the people, and they grew and multiplied at such a 
constant and steady rate that, in the time of Bameses the Great, they had become so numerous 
as to appal by their very numbers the Egyptians themselves. Indeed, if we were to give 
credence to the account of their oppressors, their habitations had become so overcrowded and 
their habits in consequence so objectionable, that leprosy was with them a national disease, so 
that Pharaoh, in self-defense, was obliged to exclude them from his dominions. Doubtless there 
is some truth in this Egyptian view of the case. Still, until indisputable evidence is given to 
the contrary, the Scripture account must stand. Judging by that, it is true beyond question 
that the stock had suffered great deterioration physically, intellectually, and morally, by reason 
alike of their numbers and their privations. But while there are instances of leprosy among 
them—both Moses and his sister being afflicted with it—the’disease does not appear to have 
been general or widespread. On the contrary, it is clear that the hand of God was in all their 
affairs, and that in like manner as he brought them down to Egypt to “ save life ” and secure 
the beginning of a nation, so, though it were through tribulation and anguish of spirit, through 
humiliation and contempt, through disappointment and deferred hope, he was bringing them 
forth again to become a great people and play a mighty part in the salvation of humanity. 

As to Joseph, it must be said that he does not belong to the order of the patriarchs. 
Though Jacob, in the partiality of his thoughts and affection, would have gladly made him his 
successor, though he did all in his power to exalt him above his brethren, yet by the evident 
design of God he was compelled to occupy a distinctly lower place. Neither the power nor the 
glory of Israel in the great story of its development is traceable to Ephraim but to Judah. Yet 
there can be no question that he was a divine instrument set to accomplish a divine purpose. 
He fully recognized himself as such. His strange experiences must have that interpretation, or 
they must remain without rational interpretation forever. Many writers have delighted to trace 
certain resemblances between Joseph and Jesus. But it is most doubtful whether there is any 
just warrant for such treatment. It is true he was the best beloved son of his father; that he 


212 


JOSEPH , AS A TYPE AND A MAN. 


had in his youth wonderful visions which almost betokened conversation with God; that he 
bore his sufferings in meekness and without reproach; that in prison he waited for the hand of 
the King to exalt and lift him up; that he descended from Canaan — which, in both Jewish 
and Christian thought, has ever been regarded as the figure of heaven — to Egypt; that he 
went down into that pagan realm, even as Jesus went to hades; that he suffered his bones to 
remain there in the hope that his brethren would in due time carry them back to Canaan. 
Doubtless some of these resemblances were of prophetic import. Doubtless, too, in a higher 
sense than any other Hebrew from Abraham to John the Baptist, Joseph was the spiritual 
ancestor of those who were to constitute the kingdom of God. But it is not wise to press these 
analogies farther than they will bear. It is better to accept him as a man, on the natural side 
of his life, of the most extraordinary intellectual, moral, and spiritual equipment. Few men 
have ever lived who could stand beside him as his equal. In this respect lie is a true descendant 
of Abraham. Yet no man can candidly study the record of the Book of Genesis without 
perceiving that he is more than that. He is scarcely less the favored and favorite son of Jacob 
than of God himself. He was raised up to do a work without which not only would Israel have 
perished, but the very way by which the Son of God was to come into this world would have 
been torn up and destroyed. No doubt God would have found other means of declaring himself 
to the world, but this was the means chosen and as such deserves our thoughtful and devout 
attention. So everywhere throughout this wonderful story of the patriarchs and their children, 
from the call of Abraham to the bondage of Israel, the tender but steadfast and triumphant 
purpose of Jehovah runs like a golden thread, ever becoming more distinct, and bright, and 
glorious as we steadily behold and profoundly examine it. 



HAUAR IN THE DESERT. 












BOOK IV. 


FROM THE BIRTH OF MOSES TO BEGINNINGS OF FREEDOM. 


Rev. Frank \V 


CrlJNSAlTLtJS, I). 


I). 


PRKSIUKNT OF ARMOUR IXSTITUTK, 


















BOOK IY. 


FROM THE BIRTH OF MOSES TO THE BEGINNINGS OF FREEDOM. 


CHAPTER I. 

“THE CRADLE OF THE HEBREW NATION.” 

^TTHERE are two majestic silences in the story of the Bible. One stretches from that hour 
J- whose chronicle we have in the closing words of the Book of Genesis, to that later hour, 
separated from the earlier by three hundred and fifty years, with which the Book of Exodus 
opens; the other, four centuries long, measures the distance between the utterance of the last 
prophet in the Old Testament and the outpoured melody of angels at the birth of Jesus in 
the New. In the lights and shadows of this first silence, we behold dimly outlined by the 
side of the dreamy Nile and the -solemn pyramid, revealed only by the flash lights of a few 
short sentences written in a later period, the almost formless Israelitisli host, around them 
that strange air invested with the purposes of Almighty God, and over them his distinct 
word of promise: “Fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great 
nation.” 1 Recent readings of ancient monuments, the deciphering of moldering papyri, the 
pages of the Greek historians or Egyptian priests, vie with that magnificence of nature and of 
art which salutes the modern traveler, and that indubitable record made in the life and char¬ 
acter of Israel, to show how admirably Egypt at that hour was fitted to be “ the cradle of the 
Hebrew nation.” The gift which, Herodotus says, was made to humanity by the Nile, was a 
seed hag containing the world’s former harvestings. 

The significance of all nature blooms into its fullness in the life and destiny of man. The 
equatorial rains creating the sluice-way for their outflow to the Mediterranean were ministers of 
him who sees the end from the beginning, and the delta thus created, as the torrents faded with 
the recession of the Nile, produced a civilization as opulent and various in its forces as were 
those material deposits on whose fertile surface it grew and flourished. But without a soul like 
Moses, and a people educated to be led forth by such a leadership, despite what civilization had 
thus far achieved, these unrelated and unimpersonal energies were impotent. Egyptian life and 
idealism were able to preserve only as a memorial and a school for some divinely inspired 
people this wealth of the past, and this splendid present rapidly identifying itself with the past. 

One of the facts which were certainly invalidating the intellectual and moral power of the 
throne of the Pharaohs to deal hopefully and in statesmanlike way with the possibilities of land 
and population was this enslaved mass of Jews. No other race could have contributed a multi¬ 
tude of bondmen so likely, even in the opinion of the Egyptian, to rebel, to incite trouble, and 
even to bring about revolution. For ages, Egypt and Israel had been hostile on every field. 
For centuries of Israel’s sojourn, Egypt had beheld the people grow, develop a fierce indepen¬ 
dence in numerous predatory excursions into Canaan, and exhibit a far-sighted mastery of 
radical ideas. Taxes and burdens of incredible weight, seizures of ancient rights guaranteed 


1 Genesis xlvi, 3. 


215 





SOIL AND COMMERCE OF EGYPT. 


216 


by Joseph, and offenses against their old dream of freedom under God, only served to intensify 
a proud spirit of revolt. The oppressors feared the oppressed, as they were seen to assume new 
dignity with each new outrage visited upon them. The system of slavery was working its own 
destruction, largely by enslaving the throne with a wholesome dread of the enslaved. Conserv¬ 
atism, such as held visible empire but failed of real supremacy, then and there did, and 
always, indeed, does count up its traditions and wealth, its franchises and institutions, with such 
self-bewilderment that all young and righteous opposition, especially if it be in chains, appears 
as did the agitation of the American slave question in 1850 even to Daniel Webster, who called 
it a “ rub-a-dub ” agitation. Ancient privilege and crowned wrong are always being asked by 
the progressive and radical Christ of history to behold its institutions, while he says : “ See ye 
not all these things?” and, because they are things and man is a soul, the Christ of history 
adds somewhere and sometime : “ There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall 
not be thrown down.” 1 

Egypt was rich in “ things .” She had wealth of soil and unbounded capacity of produc¬ 
tion. If ever slave labor may be called cheap — a proposition which the history of every 
slave-holding dynasty refutes — then did Egypt have cheap labor, which, with abundant food 
easily obtained from the luxuriant breast of nature, helped to make her a dowered queen in the 
company of half-fed oriental peoples. As day by day the spirit of freedom, grown up out of a 
sense of God’s purpose, brought them nearer to the hour when the pilgrim children of Israel 
should look back upon all the past, there was deepening a richer material background, not the 
least impressive of whose elements was the Nile, teeming with fish, lakes brilliant with the 
plumage of birds, great stretches of garden land furnishing “ the cucumbers and the melons and 
the leeks and the onions and the garlic ”; roadways trodden by caravans of laden camels 
moving between fertile and succulent pastures, and the yellow wheat fields in which the shep¬ 
herds of Israel had become agriculturists; wide channels for irrigation, near whose banks 
flourished the fig and date trees, and over whose enriching currents bended the sycamore and 
the palm. That portion of Egypt in which Israel was cradled and trained might well be worthy 
of the praise which the reigning Pharaoh bestowed upon it, when he addressed Joseph, calling 
it “ the best land.” 

In peace and war, commerce had added large wealth, material and mental, to Egypt. In 
the fourteen dynasties which had lived and perished before Joseph’s day, ships had entered the 
harbors from every land; the beer of Galilee came in Palestinian galleys; cattle and rare 
woods, furs and perfumes, negroes and precious metals, were floated down the Nile to her cities; 
the products of Libya burdened the dusty caravans. The Nile valley had always been 
attractive to the shepherd tribes. Cushites and the nomadic races joined with Phoenicians, and 
probably Syrians, to open this opportunity to enterprising power. The conquered Hittites con¬ 
tributed vases of gold, artistic material and products for temple and residence, war chariots and 
woven silks. Egyptian greed never forgot the hour, when, under the powerful Thothmes, she 
imposed tribute, like some earlier Rome, upon the whole world. Fourteen campaigns against 
Western Asia have left a record of their booty on the walls of the temple at Karnak. Even 
Ethiopia was despoiled of treasure. But, greatest of all the gifts for the future of humanity, the 
commercial spirit at its basest moment had given to this land, Joseph to be Grand Vizier; and 
now in his bones was Israel’s imperishable hope. 

To her own thought, Egypt had a finer wealth than all this. This very district is its frag¬ 
mentary memorial. Ghostlike and sublime, the gigantic wreck of a great artistic life is beheld 
in the multitude of sphinxes and columns which dot the weary monotony of sand. The ancient 
canal is dry, but the granite features of the king still command from the company of the gods. 
While the wealth of turquoise from the mines of Sinai, or gold ore from the desert of Nubia, 


1 Matthew xxiv, 2. 



EGYPTIAN MAGNIFICENCE AND CULTURE. 


217 


was borne slowly upon the Nile, and large dykes guarded the arable land, architecture had 
already employed millions of human beings, in the quarries, at the cataracts, with huge instru¬ 
ments of engineering, with fine tools for cutting and polishing, to complete the most astonishing 
results that now challenge the wonder of our race. Abraham had probably mused and 
pondered there of the strength of man, as sixty pyramids rose up to assure him that certainly 
the princes of Pharaoh were descendants of men of power. 1 Joseph had beheld a whole realm 
of art in the multitude of sepulchers and huge relics — the burial place of kings and cities. 
Sanctuaries were there whose wilderness of columns and overwritten walls were only surpassed 
in splendor by their vast and gorgeous approaches. For ten centuries the pyramid of Cheops 
had given promise that, twenty centuries later, western culture might look upon it with increased 
surprise, lhe one city, Memphis, the capital, was so magnificent as to continue its fascination for 
a millenium and a half, until the Father of History might be taught within her walls. Obelisks 
and pillars, giant statues and wonderful carvings compel the belief that still finer and grander 
was the capital of the Middle Empire, Thebes, while the City of the Sun remained at once 
the religious and educational metropolis, a veritable Vatican of priests and an Oxford of 
scholars, the memorial of Joseph’s love for the Egyptian maiden and the spot where the Hebrew 
student was to become “ learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” 2 Like the sphinx itself, 
cut from a single enormous rock, stands out for the amazement of to-day the unique art-move¬ 
ment of this people. 

Egypt was the college of the nations. Here was the academy in which the Platos and 
Bacons of the period held high converse — the birthplace of what is most attractive to the 
intellect in all human culture. This very fact was wealth. Egypt had the haughty self-con¬ 
fidence which sprang from the fact that her people were the most refined and cultured, if, indeed, 
they were not the only educated people in the known world. Greater than the builders of the 
capacious granaries and oil cellars, more deft and subtle than the artists of the wardrobes of all 
her thousand dignitaries in religion and government, partially accounting for her unmatched 
engineers, astronomers, chemists, architects, physicians, and philosophers, were Egypt’s common- 
school teachers, a republic of primary pedagogues, which made her able to give to the first-grade 
boy in our schools his arithmetic as easily as she gave back to Greece her Pythagoras, but not 
until he was able to send a Plato to the City of On. A lettered class was formed of the scribes. 
The priest was the instructor. From the knowledge of the scales of notation, the student 
advanced to geometry and trigonometry. Civil engineering and mechanical engineering point 
to the aqueducts, and the huge stones lifted to their places in pyramids six hundred feet high, 
as proofs that the Egyptians understood not a little of their secrets. It is contended that their 
astronomy has left its memorial in the great pyramids; and it is certain that the year of three 
hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter was measured with a scholarship equal to our own. 
Our metallurgists have not scorned the blowpipe and bellows used at Thebes. The hydraulic 
engineer does not disdain the practical Egyptian’s siphon ; and the Israelites themselves became 
witnesses of what Egypt could give to slaves, in quite another direction of applied science and 
art, as they afterward manufactured beautiful works in gold and silver, embroidery and the 
setting of gems. 

Egypt had government and religion. A long line of able rulers, a most brilliant career as 
a progressive people and the instinct for organization had furnished her with political traditions 
and revered methods of procedure. Herder insists that her pyramids and sepulchers are to be 
considered proof that her people had reached a misery and degradation incredible to us. Cer¬ 
tainly, however, at an earlier time, very vital and energetic must have been the autonomy and 
self-dependence of the population to have produced such a specimen of what is called “ a strong 
government.” 


1 Genesis xii, 15. 


2 Acts vii, 22. 



218 


STATECRAFT AND RELIGION. 


Ancient paintings and sculptures reveal a liigli and firm civilization, as perhaps the earliest. 
At the time with which we are most concerned, Egyptian statecraft and politics added much to 
the richnesss of that background against which we may behold the portrait of Israel. The 
power to enslave foreign peoples was almost equaled by the finer strength which wrought out of 
dissimilar populations such results as were achieved for government when Egyptian scribes, by 
a dominance of ideas, reconquered the rude shepherd kings. Such a warrior as Amenemhat I. 
enabled his successor to found such a city as Heliopolis. Her kings builded fortresses at the 
south and reservoirs for the Nile, while her priests crowded the cloisters with students. Her 
multitude of officials and her elaborate court ceremonial are to be considered along with a devel¬ 
oping literature, a prophetic art-movement, and the career of a Tliothmes who made Egypt the 
center of the world. Yet it was a statesmanship which dealt less earnestly with man than with 
“ things.” 

As much may be said of her religion. Rich enough to contribute to Israel, it was, like her 
statesmanship, to afford by contrast a startling picture of the inherent supremacy of even an 
enslaved truth. If it had granted woman a high place, it had preached pious exercises of 
almost shameless beastliness. If it enthroned the Invisible and fostered some lofty ideas of 
God, it could deify cats and crocodiles, and prostrate itself before a golden bull or a chattering 
ape. Osiris might sit in the Judgment Hall of the Two Truths, himself a picture of justice; 
but vice was rampant under the blessings of the priesthood, and in the use of the Ritual for the 
Dead, while confession was made of the truths of divine self-existence and the soul’s immor¬ 
tality, the pilgrim soul, on escaping a debased body, protested its virtue and righteousness. All 
this huge anomaly was made gorgeous in magnificent temples, musical or eloquent in a rich 
service, vital in the eager orthodoxy of countless priests, inclusive of astonishing achievements 
of science, and identical in methods and hope with a powerful government. 

Against all these, wrapped up in the form of a helpless baby, lying in tears amidst the tall 
flags and lotus blossoms of the Nile, were the unredressed wrongs of a whole people, and the 
purposes of the unforgetting God. As a man-child of manacled Hebrewdom, he encountered 
the command of Pharaoh in the first breath he drew: “Every son that is born ye shall cast into 
the river.” 1 Doubtless many sons had perished, as mother after mother sighed near the bank 
of that river where a large portion of Israel had its dwelling ; but the cause of the oppressed had 
not been drowned, and here, at this moment, that cause was identical with divine providence 
and human pity in saving for the leadership of the bondmen, Moses, the Captain, the Lawgiver, 
the Prophet, and the Emancipator of his people. 


1 Exodus i, 22. 




THE MOTHER OF MOSES. 




















CHAPTER II. 

THE YOUTH OF MOSES. 


YTTHEN Amrani was joined in holy wedlock with Jochebed, there was consummated an 
* ' alliance of great significance to human history. The name Jochebed was one of those 
anticipations, of that of which much has elsewhere been said—Israel’s perpetually widening and 
enriching revelation of the character of God — a prophetic revelation of the covenant-making 
Lord, of whom Moses, their son, was soon to have a fuller vision — for her name means “ She 
whose glory is Jehovah.” Amram, whose name signifies “Kin of the High One,” was of the 
tribe of Levi, the offspring of Kohath, who was the second son of the head of the Levitic priest¬ 
hood. Any child of this marriage, therefore, belonged to the truest aristocracy of God. This 
blood had thrilled to the commands and inspirations of the purest faith. Their creed was 
continually alive with promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Almost alone, amidst the 
corrupting influences of Egyptian mythology and worship, the tribe of Levi had kept the faith. 
Already, Miriam and Aaron had been born, and the daughter was a grown-up girl of twelve or 
fourteen, the son a child of three, when God blessed their union again, and Moses, a child of 
“ exceeding fairness,” lay in his mother’s arms. Probably Aaron had come to them before the 
inhuman tyrant had issued his desperate command that the male children of Hebrewdom should 
be drowned. But, here and now, motherhood meets this dreadful order with her fair babe. 
Three months of hiding her child made Jochebed more heroic in her faith in God. Trusting 
the “ eternal womanly ” in woman, she really trusted God. There were the growing rushes; 
they could be made into a waterproof ark by the use of slime and a coating of pitch. Silently 
and lovingly Jochebed might deposit the treasure of her love and hope in the Nile’s shadows 
amidst the bulrushes. There Pharaoh’s daughter would come to bathe with her attendant 
maidens. And there — it was motherhood’s dearest dream — the child would he safe, because 
of God. Then occurred the most marvelous of “the marvelous things” “ in the field of Zoan.” 1 
No vicious crocodile infested its beautiful waters, almost shadowed by the ancient royal resi¬ 
dence ; and, as the princess bathed, the cry of the babe, which she could not yet interpret as 
the cry of an enslaved race through her to God, came to her pitiful soul. The Egyptian Ritual 
for the Dead compelled any spirit to answer at the last: “ I have not afflicted any man : I have 
not made any man weep: I have not withheld milk from the mouth of sucklings.” Besides, 
in spite of the evident fact that this, by Pharaoh’s law, was a doomed child of the hated and 
feared Hebrews, here was a woman’s responsive heart ready to reecho the baby’s cry. 
Humanity has shaken many a dynasty into dust. At the moment when the discovery became a 
problem, and Pharaoh’s daughter was perhaps pondering the words: “ I have not withheld milk 
from the mouth of sucklings,” the sister, furnishing for all ages a delicately and strongly drawn 
portrait of true sisterhood, naively offered the love-begotten proposition that some Hebrew 
woman be asked to nurse him. What the Nile-god had given to Pharaoh’s daughter, the 
Almighty One had first given to Jochebed and Hebrewdom. Consent was easily obtained ; the 
mother of Moses was chosen — and that night he lay in Jochebed’s bosom. 

Ebers has devoted many of his brilliant sentences to the description of the appearance of 
the princess, who probably was, as he insists, none other than the sister of that young Rameses 
who was at that time associated king with Seti I. Traditions and inscriptions give her the 
names of Thermouthis and Merris. It is of more importance that Moses, whose name signifies 
“Taken from the water,” became, in due course of events, a member of the royal household. 


1 Psalm lxxviii, 12. 


220 







PHAROAH’S DAUGHTER AND THE CHIED MOSES 






















222 


MOSES' EARLY TRAINING. 


Here, and at the institutions of learning frequented by such distinguished youth, he was to be 
“ instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” He had soon entered the priestly caste. We 
have already referred to the fact that Egypt was herself a university in which every docile 
youth was matriculated. To know Egypt, as any bright young boy would know that superb 
memorial and grand workshop of scholars, was to be “ learned.” But Moses was vouchsafed all 
the unique advantages which were offered by the throne and the priesthood in which he was at 
least a novice. He trod the cloisters and sat in the lecture rooms where intelligence was 
imparted from the lips of illustrious professors. He mused in the libraries where eminent 
scribes were reproducing for such bibliographical museums as that of famous Alexandria was to 
be, the results of human thought and discovery; he was inducted into the art of song and the 
knowledge of the sacred physicians and astrologers, horoscopers and idol dressers, amidst the 
perpetual pageant of the palaces and the temples; but, more important still, he became the 
scholar of the “ Wisdom of Egypt” This was the sacred possession of a small circle of the 
intellectual and religious aristocracy. Into the secrets of that treasure, of which we learn both 
so little and so much from the glimpses of Greek and Roman philosophers hundreds of years 
afterward, Moses entered with such docility and thoroughness that, through all the pilgrim 
march, at Sinai, and in his earnest appeals in the wilderness, he is still the debtor to the culture 
obtained in the land of his youth. Probably the university at Heliopolis took him for a large 
portion of his youth from the imperial palace, but it was only the residence of a king’s favorite 
at the spot where more kingly minds than Pharaoh’s contributed their science and philosophy 
to his large and open soul. Along with this, another culture grew. Amram and Jochebed 
and Hebrewdom, through solemn memory, ancient psalm, and inspiring promise, had obtained 
the start of the throne and the university of the City of the Sun. The mother’s knee is the 
altar at which the child-soul makes the sacrifice of itself to the learning which is life’s chief 
resource and highest commandment. Against all this culture from Egypt, over it and through 
it, supple and strong enough to master and to use it, was the home culture of the Hebrew 
hearthstone. Then and there came what Principal Fairbairn calls “ the conflict of the two 
natures, the native and the acquired in him; the victory of the Hebrew over the Egyptian.” 

On one of those days when slavery sullenly vaunted its hateful prerogative, the patriot Jew 
flashed forth from the scholarly courtier, as afterward William the Silent was to rise, with a 
sword in his hand, from out the sometime easy-going and compliant inmate of the palace of 
Charles Y. One of the native masters was beating a Hebrew slave. In his wrath, Moses slew 
the Egyptian taskmaster. Of course, this conduct was murder, and it courted death as punish¬ 
ment. It separated him from his brethren. He added to his crime, in the eye of the Egyptian 
law, for, by concealing the corpse, he had prevented embalmment; and Egypt believed that the 
soul of the dead could not enter heaven. Nothing but exile remained for Moses, if he desired 
to live. Away to the craggy Sinaitic peninsula he hurried for refuge. The Almighty One 
was guiding Israel in every step which Moses took. Elsewhere, especially if he had fled to the 
south of Palestine, the authorities, acting under the Hittite treaty, would have returned him an 
extradited prisoner. No; God would acquaint Israel’s emancipator with that set of facts of 
which neither Amram’s household nor Egypt’s university possessed the required knowledge. 
The Moses of Israel’s emancipation was to need all he could acquire of the knowledge of Sinai. 
Barren Midian is better, at this stage in the education of any Moses, than Thebes or On, or 
even the feast of the Jews. Cromwell must drain the fen country. So did God eive 
Washington the English colonial territory to win, or to survey, before and after Braddock’s 
defeat, that he might save it to the cause of the Continental army; so also did God educate 
Lincoln in the Midian of Kentucky, where he could know American slavery and survey the 
actual intellectual and spiritual territory through which he was to lead a race to the Canaan of 
liberty — a Canaan which, like Moses, he saw from afar as he died on Nebo. 






TRAINING OF MOSES.—THE BURNING BUSH. 


223 


Here in Midian, where he met Abraham and Keturah’s wandering descendants, the man 
Moses, now forty years of age, was certain to obtain, not only from the nomadic race, but also 
from the vast solitudes of nature, a nobler and clearer idea of the Almighty One. Moses was 
full of fiery quality which was to temper his character, while now and then it burst forth, as it 
did at one of the ancient wells. Base and insulting shepherds had offended the daughters of the 
priest of Midian, driving away their flocks. The chivalric Moses protected them with a strong 
hand. Every such act deepens the soul’s receptiveness for the truer vision of the Eternal 
Righteousness. Out of this came the invitation to their father’s house and the marriage of 
Moses to Zipporah, his daughter. Slight indeed is the record of those forty years; but there is 
much evident, though it be unrecorded, history in these silences. Zipporah afterward proved to 
be strong-willed and high-tempered; and with her the soul of Moses was wifeless. When at 
length he went to Pharaoh, Zipporah was sent away. Doubtless the house of the rich sheik, 
Jethro, served Moses best, as it sent him back into the resources of his own spirit and the 
worship of God. His two sons seem by their very names to indicate that, while there, he was 
also exiled from the real business of his life. Their names were Gershom — “banishment”; 
Eliezer —“My God is help.” All this while, Moses was moving toward God and divine 
destinies. Here were the Horeb mountains and there was Sinai — to them he would return. 
Here he was making definite and larger the knowledge of that land, many of whose valleys 
and heights, roadways, wells and streams would, at a future day, challenge or assist his ability 
to lead a nation to liberty. Those sandstone hills, purple and red in their craggy sublimity, lit 
by every variation of light; the vague and wide desert, less barren then than now; the 
numerous wadies, shadowed by pinnacles and cliffs; the eagle flying with her young — these all 
deepened the solemnity of human life; and the musing man found here the majesty of God. 
All of these, like so many nourishing forces, prepared him for that event in whose mysterious 
lights the Hebrew nation found its torch lit for revolution. 


CHAPTER III. 

THE BURNING BUSH AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE. 

“AND the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; 
A an( i ] ie looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 
And Moses said, I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 
And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of 
the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Draw not nigh 
hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 
Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.” 1 

Such is the divine narrative of the event most genetic and formative in the character of the 
Hebrew chieftain. Moses never before had an intelligent hold upon himself; never before had 
he a just conception of how his own life took hold of other lives and bound itself up with the 
fate of human society and the reign of God in the world. In the vision of God he gained the 
vision of himself. It is interesting to study the inner life of Moses before the vision of this 
burning bush and afterward. Nothing in the whole Bible, so truly as this, gives the portrait of 
a. man’s spiritual self in those moments of mingled hot-headedness and indifference, before he 


1 Exodus iii, 2-7. 




224 


MOSES IN MIDIAN. 


finds God and himself in some hour of vision, and the portrait of that other self when by that 
vision he has become an intelligent and conscientious force which knows no wasteful outburst of 
energy nor has a moment in which its constant vitality is not at work. Years before he had 
felt, in that unintelligent way in which men feel the pressure of great wrongs, the atrocity of 
Egyptian bondage, and when the Hebrew was receiving the cruel stroke, he dispatched the 
Egyptian taskmaster. It was an unregulated outburst of indignation which, so far as we know, 
did not leave a single great purpose in his heart. Indeed, it had left him poorer in all the 
requirements of a constructive reformer, rather than richer. There is always something 
enervating and dissipating in those fire-sweeping movements of the soul, when the blaze has 
not come from a great flaming truth or a torch-like principle lighting men on to a definite goal. 
Moses fled from the court of the king, and after years of love and exile, wherein no word is 
spoken, so far as we know, of the mighty problem which he encountered in that beaten slave, 
and which he does not seem at all to try to solve, we find him an oriental shepherd. He is well 
married; why should he trouble himself about the great world and its perplexing questions ? 
He reclines on the soft turf and sees the feeding flocks of a rich father-in-law; why should he 
worry about the people who are unfortunate enough to be in slavery ? Let the fanatics take 
care of those matters. He once was all on fire, too. And he thinks, as he looks out from 
the mountain-side over the delightful valley, that his enthusiasm cost dearly enough. But yet, 
before that wretched self-content which keeps many a well-housed son-in-law and many an 
untroubled man from being of service to his race—just before that self-satisfied, comfortable 
and easy life puts its crown on — the native man in this shepherd wakes to behold the vision 
of God, the burning bush, the revealing omnipotence of righteousness, and the glowing but 
perpetual victory of truth. 

Many a man has had all this experience, save the recognition of the burning bush. He, 
too, has been living in a world full of sin, and cruelty, and crime. In his ardent youth, he has 
seen some proud iniquity beat its slave, and he has hurled himself against it to put it out of 
existence. There has been no great principle at the bottom of his act; no peerless truth lay 
like a revelation in his soul; no profound righteousness shone like a star above the swelling 
anger of his indignant spirit. And that experience of trying to help the world has left him 
much less strong. It has exiled him from the very society in which he might be expected 
to shine. It has so thoroughly impressed him with the littleness of his power and the lone¬ 
liness of his effort, that he is half ashamed that he has tried to do anything at all. Like 
Moses, domestic life is probably his chief concern. To be well fed and well clothed mean 
more than they meant then. To have a respectable income, even if it comes only by a 
fortunate marriage; to be sure of an easy, quiet life; to muse about nature, and, at a great 
distance, to pity the unfortunate — these are now of priceless value. When men talk about 
enthusiasm and the flaming truths of God, it is enough to remind them that once he was 
on fire too, and that he burned out with great rapidity; that these glowing moments are very 
brilliant, but full of dangerous heat and consuming flame. His dead Egyptian did not save 
Israel. But here Moses is transformed. He has found God ; he has found himself. Before, 
he was easy and content; now there blazes in his spirit the flame of glowing truth which shall 
furnish ensigns for the great revolution. No longer shall the beautiful pastures enchant his 
spirit; no foot of land shall be but cursed to him so long as Egypt bears the footstep of a slave. 
Before, he was isolated and knew no feeling which made the life he lived and the life his kins¬ 
men lived one; now the full responsibility of humanity is upon him, and, with a consciousness 
of being in the presence of God, the luxuriant and selfish individualism goes out as the true 
personality comes into him. How strange was everything ! Over the splendid sky under which 
he was delightedly watching the flock, was written, “Let my people go! ” 1 On the rock against 


1 Exodus v, 1. 



TRUTH SYMBOLIZED BY THE BURNING BUSH. 


225 

which he leaned, or in whose shade he fell asleep aforetime, blazed the words, “Let my people 
<jo! Into the playful brook and along the rapid river on whose banks he had stood in easy 
giace and pastoral mood, there sounded the alarm to Pharaoh, the tocsin of war to the Egyptian 
tin one, the first movement of freedom to the hapless slave. “Let my people go!” God had 
revealed himself, and Moses was a transformed man. 

1 ruth will burn, and by its burning illuminate, yet it is inconsumable; principles will 
flame with living fire and make the very air to glow and quiver with heat, yet they are inde¬ 
structible; right, love of God and love of man will blaze in their significance and tremble with 
their withering or beneficent fire, but they will know no consumption or waste; they cannot be 
reduced to ashes ; they are as eternal as God. That little thorn bush which Moses saw has gone 
down into history as the teacher of these things. But it is not alone. Wherever any noble 
creature of God has seen the truth, which, through a thousand heated struggles, has burned its 
way into the air men breathe and perpetuated its existence while it made the tropics in some 
polar region of public sentiment, safe after all the fury of fire, still standing and still burning 
with a divine glory — there has been the vision of the burning bush. When any soul has 
seen a flaming principle, which, through dark and dismal times, has sent its illumination afar, 
still blazing after the eyes of men have been entranced by its revelation, waiting while it glows 
with the fervor of God to light up a new era, or scatter the darkness of some new danger — 
there has been the vision of the burning bush. Wherever the quenchless right which has 
trembled with fire divine through long ages, and warmed the damp air and made bright the 
landscape around it, still is seen to abide in the furnace heat of its old splendor and wait to 
rouse men to new duties — there is the burning bush. Wherever some great heart feels the 
inextinguishable love of humanity which has felt the drenching rains of centuries of doubt and 
despair, and still believes that man is God’s child, and still is ready with the old inconsumable 
enthusiasm to brave defeat and endure danger for man’s sake — there the burning bush of 
Moses stands, and there a new Moses finds God. 

Israel here found her greatness through the experience of her greatest soul. The revela¬ 
tion of himself in the commonplace is one of the most interesting facts of God’s dealings with 
men. Anti the more we see of the nature of this burning bush, the more we discover of the 
fitness of this characteristic of the event. If that point in every man’s history, where he 
becomes the true and earnest man he ought to be, is Avhere he is fascinated with the permanency 
and missionary quality of truth, and right, and love, it is certain that God must get him to feel 
all this, in perfect independence of the circumstances in which it conies to him. To be great, 
a nation through its leaders must see God in the least of its events. There was just as much in 
the episode with the Egyptian to make a reformer; there was just as much of principle and 
righteousness involved as there was in the burning bush. Why did the bush arouse this man ? 
The answer is: God was in it, to the eye of Moses. Of course, the years lying between had 
trained his vision to depth and spirituality. Never before did Moses see God shining in the 
truth that he was to use through that whole revolution; never before did he see the Omnip¬ 
otent One behind the impersonal principle, which, because it was unilluminated and cold 
without God, had not yet roused him ; never before did he know that his love for man was 
God's love for man in him. God might have spoken to Moses by some great event, in some 
huge way, which would have fitly shown how vast God’s hand or voice was, but that would not 
have found the interior and essential Moses which the exigent future would demand. Moses 
had work before him to do, as has every man, of the sort which is not to be done by a soul 
whose sight is not fine enough to discover the significance of that flaming little bush, whose ear 
was not deft enough to catch the voice which spake in the midst of its flame. It must be a 
“great sight” to him. Never has there been a great leader, or a real helper of men, who has 
not been able to see that truth, principle, right, each is one. That eye alone can see the larger 


226 


GOD'S TRAINING OF MOSES. 


which sees intelligently the less. A man must know the infinity inside the right, burning but 
inconsumable, which is trampled upon, or struggled for, in the least conspicuous event of human 
life. He must he able to see the divine self inside the principle which shines above some little 
transaction of man with men. He must know the God in the right, or the truth, which is 
begging for championship in some insignificant occurrence in the whirl of business, the rush of 
trade, the movement of society, the action of each man toward his neighbor. To see that, is to 
see the burning hush. 

God’s training of the eye of Moses began where, by his grace, all training for great deeds 
ought to be begun. Give the child, Israel, the ability to discover the presence of God as ruler, 
as judge, as inspirer, in every truth, every principle, wherever he finds it; let him learn to hear 
the divine voice speaking out of it, in the very least event where the right burns and is not con¬ 
sumed — and his soul is fitted for the loftiest duties of the earth. When he comes to Sinai’s 
thunder and lightning, his foremost man, Moses, shall understand them. 

It is very characteristic of so rare a spirit as Moses that he should say, “ I will now turn 
aside and see this great sight, why the hush is not burnt.” For when Moses first noticed it, it 
was simply “ a great sight ”— a flame which did not consume. Every quality of mind, which 
the study of his after-life reveals, was aroused. Always the deeper the nature the more genuine 
is its wonder, the more profound is its sense of mystery. Just that questioning advance which 
Moses made toward that hush will be made by any true soul, when first it sees, somewhere along 
life’s pathway, some principle flashing with flame and blazing with heat in some contest of right 
with wrong, and yet yielding nothing to the combustion, losing nothing in the fiercest fire. He 
is a dull man who, unlike Moses, does not feel that it is thus far “ the great sight ” of his life. 

Israel, through Moses, met another method of God the moment he advanced toward the 
bush. God said to him what, at some time in the study of such mysteries, God says to every 
thoughtful soul: “ Moses, Moses.” He touched for the first time the 'personal self of the 
Hebrew leader with his own personal self. 11 Here am said Moses. In his discovery of God, 
Moses had found himself, as every soul must. Then comes into action the old method of God 
with the human soul, when he says to it: “ This mystery is the mystery which inheres in me 
and my presence in the good, the true, and the beautiful. It is not yours to understand, but to 
use. You are standing on holy ground now. Draw not nigh hither: put off* thy shoes from 
off thy feet.” The use of this inspiring wonder characterizes the life of Israel, and that alone 
differentiates Israel from all other ancient peoples. 

It is a great step in the progress of any soul, or nation, toward the practical, useful under¬ 
standing of God, when it obeys this voice from out the heat of the flame. Many a soul stands 
by that bush and loses all the benefit of God’s revelation of himself in the good, the true, the 
beautiful, blazing yet unconsumed, because it will not recognize that the mystery of it is to be 
used as a mystery, not to be analyzed into the category of life’s comprehended facts. God says 
to our speculation and rationalism: “ Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet.” 
It is profanity, and no soul or nation is deep, so long as it is irreverent and unawed. Heaven 
pity the soul or nation which, especially in its beginnings, has no holy ground. After all, it is 
the reserve of all noble life. Men and governments are great by the length and breadth of 
“ holy ground ” in their lives. 


CHAPTER IV. 

THE MEMORIAL NAME AND ITS INFLUENCE. 


TT is not too much to say that the majestic possibilities afterward unfolded in the character of 
-L this people inhered in the call of Moses which was communicated to him before he returned 
to Egypt. “ The great events of the world,” says the penetrative Amiel, “ take place in the 
intellect.” The author of the kingdom of love, himself a refashioner of man’s life and conduct 
by means of inculcating a larger and truer conception of God, always spoke of the divine order 
of progress as “ from above.” First, “ the new heavens ” of thought and worship, then “ the 
new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.” “ Progress,” says Hegel, “ first in the idea, then in 
the thing.” This consideration, so variously stated, helps us to see that the resource which 
every great and reforming soul draws upon for strength is that which he calls supreme — the 
power that rules the worlds. The character and potency of that which governs is the base of 
supplies for every soul undertaking a task worthy of himself. If the task is greater than any 
preceding it, it is so partly because it involves greater truths. It must, therefore, call upon 
deeper fountains of inspiration and guidance. Every Moses makes new tasks command him, 
and every Moses goes deeper into the nature of God for the supply of his intellectual and 
spiritual necessities. God discloses some hitherto unknown tract of himself: He renames Moses 
by renaming himself in the experience of his prophet. This is the significance of that episode 
in the life of mankind — for his was a contribution to the race’s theology and statesmanship — 
in which Moses beholds the burning bush. 

Nothing can excel in simple strength the account in the Bible:* “ Now Moses was keeping 
the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the back of 
the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb. And the angel of the Lord 
appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, 
the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside 
now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he 
turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. 
And he said, Here am I. And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy 
feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the God of 
thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his 
face; for he was afraid to look upon God. And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction 
of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for 
I know their sorrows; and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, 
and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with 
milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the 
Perizzite, and the Hivite, ancl the Jebusite. And now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel 
is come unto me: moreover I have seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. 
Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people 
the children of Israel out of Egypt. And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go 
unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt ? And he said, 
Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be the token unto thee, that I sent thee: when 
thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. And 
Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, 


Exodus iii, 1-16 (Revised Version). 

17 


227 



228 


THE NAMES OF GOD. 


The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name ? 
What shall I say unto them ? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, 
Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said 
moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord, the God of 
your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto 
you : this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” 

All these incidents led, with that naturalness which characterizes the divine method of 
education, to an event of the supremest importance. The hour had come for God to give to his 
servant a new name for the supreme power above him — a name so profoundly related to the 
deeps this task might call upon, so intimately close to the heart of the people whose every 
throbbing energy it must tax, that it would stand as a memorial name. “And Moses said, 
Who am I that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel 
out of Egypt? ” That question “ Who am If ” is not fundamental. God does not answer it to 
any hesitant soul. It is not so important to know “ Who am I ? ” as to know “ Who art thou, 
O God ? ” The resources and inspirations of every great task are not in Moses, but in the power 
which he calls supreme. No man sees himself, or knows himself, except as he knows the life 
that is his life, the spirit that inspirits him. It was not strange that Moses should find his 
own personality only in finding the surer lines of the personality of God. Moses then and 
there asked for the new name. And God answered: “I AM THAT I AM.” In order to 
strengthen the idea which doubtless leaped into being, that he might use this new name, and 
that it had an inherent authority, God added: “Tell Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.” 

Already God’s name, as Israel knew it, had served as a protection against the entrance into 
their worship of the animals of Egypt and the monsters of the river. In his exile in Midian, 
Moses had found, still more grand and awe-inspiring than ever before, the Almighty One. 
There was enough in that name by which his fathers had worshiped God, and enough in their 
deeper experiences in obeying and serving him, to suggest, even in the time mentioned in the 
Book of Genesis, the name Jehovah. But, at this hour, Moses was really to reveal its meaning, 
as past ran through present into future events, and to hear God utter to the growing life of 
Israel the truth of any prophetic idea of him. It was to the life of Israel a new name. From 
henceforth, they were “ the people,” not only of the Almighty, certainly not of Baal or Moloch : 
they were “ the people of Jehovah.” A long step had been taken toward that far-off hour when 
the greater Jew, whose life was a burning bush, would teach his followers to say : “ Our Father 
who art in heaven.” 

Moses might now build loftily, because he had gone to the foundation of all being. His 
first stone of the edifice rested on the self-dependent. His appeal was to the cause of causes. 
Out of that name would arise commandments and codes, government and prophetic visions, as 
the blossoms from a seed. Pharaoh was right when he said : “ Who is Jehovah ? I know not 
Jehovah.” To name the power of powers Jehovah, was the declaration that the soul of all 
history and all hope is. All true philosophy of history begins in that moment of' which God 
gives the account in the words: “ And God spake unto Moses and said, I am Jehovah ; and I 
appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai [The Omnip¬ 
otent] , but by the name Jehovah did I not make myself known unto them.” 

“ I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
Jacob.” Here, then, is the covenanting God — the supreme God of promises. One fact con¬ 
nects and relates the ages. “ I AM THAT I AM ” is himself both the promise and the 
promiser, to every Moses of civilization. This personal and care-taking God puts a soul into 
all the apparent chaos of ideas and things. These burning bushes are the beacon fires of the 
race’s pilgrimage. Alone they last, while generations come and go. Man is never out of 
sight of their ardent glow. His children come to hear the same voice from the center of 



GOD'S TRAINING OF ISRAEL. 


229 


the flame, which has scarcely died away on the ears of their fathers. The ages of human 
life are thus, under Jehovah, one and indivisible. 

With this resource, with this light illuminating the jiast, the present and the future, Israel 
could now speak, through Moses, to saint or to tyrant. The dead Joseph lived again in the 
words with which Moses addressed the elders of Israel. The dying words of the patriarch 
were: “God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he 
sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” 1 Now, nearly four hundred years later, they 
trembled again on the unquiet air, when Moses spake: “ The Lord God of your fathers, the 
God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying: I have surely visited you .” 8 
Joseph had made an oath: “Ye shall carry up my bones from hence .” 3 In the ampler 
eloquence of Moses, the glad and heroic funeral procession was already forming. In this steady 
and sagacious leader, what a different man lives than was the self-confident, lawless and rash 
avenger of that beaten slave! Moses’ ardor, however, while it had cooled, had permanently 
contributed to the intensity of his purpose to do something for his own people. In that exile of 
forty years, consequent upon his rash act, the slaves had been growing readier for noble revolt, 
and when their unknown leader returned, the very dependence he placed in the elders of Israel 
showed that he appreciated the value of organization in his enterprise. All the old fire was 
there, but now it played upon the resources, developing every cold drop into propulsive steam. 

But, through the eyes of the leader, Israel must behold God’s will in the most suggestive 
signs. Surely the method of God’s training at such hours helps us to understand the prophet, 
ages afterward, when he says: “ When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son 
out of Egypt.” 4 Moses was commanded to cast his shepherd’s staff on the ground. It was 
transformed into a sliddering serpent, and Moses was terrified and fled. God bids him take it 
by the tail, and lo, it is “ a rod in his hand.” So the Lord was leading Israel; so also does the 
Lord lead his Israel evermore. It was more than the announcement to Moses that, as he had 
hitherto used the ordinary crook of the shepherd, so he was henceforth to use for sovereign 
purposes the power of Egypt. Even Pharaoh’s diadem shone with the serpent — the symbol of 
royalty, the emblem of Egyptian power. It is true that when, once again, he seized it, his 
thought would apprehend Israel as his flock and this “ rod of God ” should be his staff of 
authority and affection. But more than this is to be learned here. The secret of all masterful 
manhood is here an open one. Every man is a victim of his power, or the victor over it — the 
victor by it and through it. The ambition of a life, if it be thrown on the ground, is a hissing 
serpent from which any frightened and timid soul flees; that ambition seized by the strong hand 
of faith becomes the rod of strength. Whatever authority over his fellows the man who pos¬ 
sesses it is to have in this world must come from this very factor in his existence. A weakness 
is only a power cast down on the earth ; a power is only a weakness seized and handled by the 
courage of faith. Jehovah continued this teaching of his children of Israel by Moses. He 
placed his hand in his bosom, and it became leprous; when he placed it there again it was 
restored to health and strength. The priestly power in his devotion to Israel brings out the 
leprous relationship in which they stand to Egypt, and that same power delivers them from 
this contagion. Again, the water of the Nile shall become blood as he pours it on the dry 
land. Here, God seems to say, is a cause to which all the fruitful energies of the Nile are to be 
submissive. Surely, as Lange suggests, here are seen the prophetic, the priestly, and the kingly 
qualities of the deliverer. God gave these to him and developed these in him; and, in then- 
growth, Moses was less self-confident; he was modest in the presence of new energies. 

What could be more natural to such a concentrated soul, in the midst of so much din and 
confusion, than a desire to possess the orator’s guerdon of strength ? He bemoaned the slowness 
of his tongue. Here was the Cromwell of the period, with what Sir Philip Warwick called a 


1 Genesis 1, 24. 


2 Exodus Hi, 10. 


3 Genesis 1, 25. 


4 IIosea xi, 1. 



CONDITIONS LEADING TO THE EXODUS. 


230 

“ sharp and untuneable voice ” and “ no grace of speech.” Like the stern Oliver, Moses was to 
change empires by saying “Yea” and “Nay,” at the right times and with just emphasis, 
though he should also leave to the literature of eloquence some of its finest passages. No 
greater orator lives than he whose words, like his deeds, are God’s utterances through him. 

It must be confessed that Pharaoh heard a trumpet-tone within the words which soon left 
the lips of Moses and fell upon the ruler’s ears: “ The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: 
and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacri¬ 
fice unto the Lord our God.” 1 “ The God of the Hebrews! ” This expression echoed the arms 
of ancient battles and whispered of other and future fields of contest. We must remember that 
Moses was not always beyond reproach; God was delivering men by a man like unto them¬ 
selves. But, at least, here was no shrewd diplomat seeking only the escape of Israel by way of 
false pretenses; the earnest-eyed Hebrew leader had not forgotten Israel’s ancient rights; and, 
indeed, in this matter, he was regardful of the rights and religious sensitiveness of Egypt. It 
must be remembered that Israel had never been captured, or rightfully bound, even according 
to Egyptian jurisprudence. Under Joseph, it was understood that they “sojourned there.” 
Besides, in this case, their worship, in which they were granted such privileges, must be an 
abominable thing to Egyptian piety. This request on the part of Moses and Israel gave the 
government of Pharaoh an opportunity for wise and just concession. “ All government,” says 
Burke, “is possible only by compromise.” A righteous compromise is truest statesmanship. 
Would he, could he, exercise the statesmanship which looked toward an assimilation of this 
people with the Egyptian nationality ? To neglect to do this involved, here and now, such an 
act of despotism as could indicate nothing else to Israel than a determination to abolish the 
worship of Jehovah and stamp out the Hebrew. Pharaoh refused. So, and only so, does God 
“harden Pharaoh’s heart.” 


CHAPTER V. 

LAST DAYS IN EGYPT. 

HTHE war of the great exile was on. It was, as Pharaoh dimly saw, a war with Jehovah also. 
J- He had felt the-force of the Hebrew’s vision of God. “Jehovah,” said Moses, “God of 
Israel, saith: Let my people go that they may hold a feast in the wilderness.” “ Who is 
Jehovah?” protested the startled devotee of the golden bull — “Who is Jehovah that I should 
obey his voice ? ” 2 The King of Egypt had already lost his slaves. Statesmanship without the 
“I am that I am ” has no future. It can only say to the strained institution, as Pharaoh said to 
that mass of bondmen, “ Get you to your burdens.” All revolution is repressed evolution. 
“ Statesmanship,” says Goldwin Smith, “ is not the art of making a revolution, but the art of 
avoiding one.” Moses seemed to be the revolutionist; he was only pleading for evolution. 
Pharaoh was the spring of the great revolt; and God said of him : “ With a strong hand shall 
he drive them out of his land. I am Jehovah! ” 3 Pilgrims with Mayflower compacts in their 
cabins owe to Pharaoh their glorious exile. “ I am Jehovah! ” They alone bear republics 
and democracies into unsubdued wildernesses or lands of Canaan. “ I am Jehovah ! ” 

Too much honor is not likely to be paid to the less conspicuous and unrecorded forces in 
any beneficent revolution ; and we are always likely to underestimate even so strong a spirit as 
Aaron, the elder brother of this divinely led man. While Moses had been in Midian, Aaron 
had been so sympathetic with God’s purpose and so earnest in pushing it to achievement, that. 


1 Exodus v, 3 (Revised Version). 


2 Exodus v, 2. 


3 Exodus vi, 1-2. 





MICHELANGELO 


MOSES 











































232 


MOSES ’ MESSAGE DELIVERED. 


at length, just before Moses returned to Egypt, Aaron journeyed to meet him at Sinai. In that 
forty years, Israel had grown ripe for revolt. The elders had fostered and guided the growing 
desire for freedom. As they came to understand God, they understood more truly man and his 
problem. With the development of a sense of Jehovah's righteousness had come the develop¬ 
ment of a sense of the wrongs they had been suffering. Heavier burdens had created only 
clearer convictions; the lash of the oppressor had intensified a passionate devotion to the cause 
into whose deeper meanings their as yet unacknowledged leader had been looking. The hour 
for a shrinking leader had passed. Aaron had already been mentioned to the timid and awed 
Moses as a person more apt at public speech, and he was ready to go with Moses to Pharaoh — 
each of the brothers possessed of a new eloquence. Jethro had said to Moses, as he left 
Midian : “ Go in peace! ” but now there was no peace before his footsteps. God had told him 
that his personal enemies were dead ; the foe of freedom was never more powerful; and Pharaoh 
would not let the people go. Before the man Moses was worthy to utter a command to Pharaoh, 
Jehovah had been compelled to strip Moses of all unworthiness; personalities must be lost in 
causes. It was a terrible culture; great souls may be wedded to great aims, not otherwise. A 
violent death, the impending of a fearful disease — God’s threatened judgments — made him 
perceive the value of divine command above his own hesitant individualism and the disobedient 
whim of Zipporah, his wife. Herself compelled to perform the rite of circumcision upon the 
younger son, according to the covenant with Abraham, she had only this to say to Moses, 
“ Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.” 1 Only on the boy’s quick recovery did she utter 
words of delayed gratefulness. The mighty words of God to Moses had been exchanged for 
Aaron’s report of the condition of the Hebrews, as the brothers had conversed together. Pha¬ 
raoh had offered them only his defiance. Back to their labors the children of Jehovah’s 
covenant had been sent, no longer to be furnished with the usual chopped straw with which 
they had been manufacturing clay into bricks, no longer able to search for straw and keep up 
their tale of bricks, therefore no longer able to escape the beatings of the overseers — alas, no 
longer proof against the taunts of the ruler alleging their idleness. Though so recently the 
elders of Hebrewdom had expressed joy that the crisis had come, now, to train them more thor¬ 
oughly, Moses and Aaron were charged by the united voice of Israel with being the authors of 
Israel’s woes. Nothing could have given a harder blow. Yet God followed this apparently 
pitiless stroke against Moses by giving him additional assurances, all of them ringing with the 
old theme, “/ am Jehovah! ” Command, however, preceded only their failure to reach 
Pharaoh’s heart. Assurance from God swiftly followed defeat with man. At length, Moses 
and Aaron alone have utterly failed; and now let the Almighty One, whose new name is 
Jehovah, speak to him. 

The Pharaoh of this date was, if the conclusions of scholars are right, Menephtali I., son 
of Raineses II., with whom Moses had doubtless been associated in his childhood within the 
royal palace. Why should he listen, even to this interesting and learned Jew? But his 
attention was now to be engaged by the power behind the Hebrew: 

'•'■Right forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,— 

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, 

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.” 

There rang through the mazes of the problem a divine word : “ Against the gods of Egypt 
I will execute judgment; I am Jehovah !” 8 Moses and his eloquent brother Aaron again 
confronted the despot. The leader’s mission was attested by wondrous signs. The rod became 
a serpent; but Pharaoh was unmoved, for he knew the Egyptian magicians might surpass this 
marvel. Great was the meaning of the serpent to idolatrous Egypt, but Aaron’s rod swallowed 


1 Exodus iv, 25. 


2 Exodus xii, 12. 






THE TRIUMPH OF AARON'S ROD 













































































































234 


SPIRITUAL ANALOGIES OF THE PLAGUES. 


up all the others. That rod symbolized the fact that God’s purpose is all-inclusive. But such 
a lesson is too difficult for an unteachable ruler to learn. The worshiping Pharaoh, probably 
more than ever attentive to the Nile-god Osiris, is met at the river bank by Moses, just as always 
human plans that are wrong are met and judged by some lonely but omnipotent truth. Man 
is more deeply superstitious toward the old gods, when the command of unacknowledged truth 
is offensive to him. But the Nile is turned into blood. History has many such events, of 
which this is the symbol. The pride and wealth of evil — all its productiveness and profits 
— are suddenly made a loathing and hateful asset, when the hour comes for goodness to execute 
its plans for humanity and God. Many a people, refusing the true ideal, as did Pharaoh, have 
been unable to drink inspiration from an old one, which, perhaps, had become as much an idol 
to reactionary wrong as had the Nile to Pharaoh. It is not to the purpose to explain this 
phenomenon by reference to the transforming influences of the vanishing year upon the river, 
or to those still more evident influences of the setting sun upon the languid stream. All these 
Pharaoh understood. Even to explain the event by reference to the “ rapid growth of infusoria 
and minute cryptogamous plants of a red color,” making the water red, is to miss the spiritual 
and perennial fact that, whether these accounts are valid or not, even the best idol — be it a 
constitution or a man — when it has been made to represent crowned unrighteousness, will 
inevitably be made a curse by the first appearance of uncrowned righteousness. 

As much may be said of the spiritual truths conveyed to any but the disobedient mind of 
Egypt, in the other plagues visited upon the land and people of Pharaoh. The frog had a high 
place in the animalistic worship of the realm. Probably the mud consequent on the annual 
inundation of the Nile had produced vast multitudes of these. Magicians could here imitate 
Moses to a slight extent. But only Moses — only the supremacy of righteousness — can ever 
make the life of man worth living and the air he breathes pure. Again, God was Jehovah. 

Sir Samuel Baker informs us that, after the rice harvest, it often seems that “ the very dust 
is turned into lice.” But, in remembering the plague of lice which followed the plague of frogs 
in Egypt, he must not forget the fact that Aaron’s rod had touched the dusty earth. “ Beware,” 
says Emerson, “ when God lets loose a thinker on the planet: then all things are at a risk.” 
Aaron’s rod was full of the divine vitality of truth, even to the point of budding. One 
living idea, touching a world of things out of harmony with its command, turns them all into 
curses. The very dust becomes lice. No magician can imitate this miracle, as those of Egypt 
could not. It is of God’s true magic; only the genius of progressive righteousness may 
perform it; and it is performed all the while, whenever an unobeyed truth comes into contact 
with recalcitrant untruth. Old saws of obsolescent wisdom roused into a kind of life by a fresh, 
inherently supreme purpose in history, are the lice whose presence “ hardens Pharaoh’s heart.” 
Even the magicians of the dull-eyed time sometimes say, as did those of Pharaoh’s court, “ It is 
the finger of JElohim .” This is only part of the truth. It is more sympathetic with the whole 
truth to say, “ It is the finger of Jehovah.” But Pharaoh had not been led far enough to utter 
the new and memorial name: “Jehovah.” The very name involved a statesmanship which 
meant ruin to his empire. 

Another utterance of God — and other small, pestiferous, winged creatures swarmed in the 
air. This was a heavy stroke against the popular worship. This plague infests the land to this 
day; but it can never have such significance. These insects were the nation’s very symbols of 
“ the creative principle, its emblems of the sun.” The profanity was that they had become 
noxious vermin. Every reformer, perforce, by his introducing contrasting justice into unjust 
life or society, is a Moses whose power no Pharaoh suspects. Still the tyrant cries, “It is 
JElohim.” “ Yea,” Moses would have added, “ and Jehovah / ” “ Let the Hebrews go,” said 

Pharaoh, at last; but on the cessation of the plague, he “ hardened his heart ” 1 again. 


1 Exodus viii, 28-32. 




Zedad. a 37 


1 ROUTE OF THE ISRAELITES. 


\ EDOMITES, ISHMALITES, 
DESCENDANTS Or KETURAH 
\LOT & C.AND SYRIANS. 5 




lw f^ 




CANAANITES. 


EGYPT OR MIZRAIM 1 
DESCENDANTS OF HAM. 


Tf \ $}~'^T{i*nalh 


\ Sul(-h a. 


MpY 7l “ liri } 


mm ft 


ll/esM'OiO 


■JPass_Jei}0 

KEN ITt 

KaO\ esh ‘ 


mUj° l \ (Ca siot/s) Ka ,U^banf?fi 


l(Heroopolis) 




Memphis) 




jjleradeopolis) 


anes| 


MOUNTAINS OF SINAI. 


THE ROUTES >v 

OF THE 

ISRAELITES 

From Egypt through the 

DESERT. CANAAN 

At the Time of the Conquest. 


SCALE OF MILES 


31 Franklin Co., Fngrs., Chi, 32 



































































































































OBDURACY OF PHARAOH. 


235 


Following upon these, was the murrain, with its extensive desolation of death amongst the 
cattle. This stroke against the religiousness of Pharaoh’s nation was severe. The cow and ox 
in Egypt were sacred; and, therefore, Isis and Osiris were offended gods. By this immense 
event, Apis and Mnevis had been iusulted and profaned. Deities of evil are always dethroned 
by goodness; and the iconoclast is thought a nuisance, insolent and rebellious. And now man 
is touched. First, the things he worships, or prizes, are smitten by any progressive truth to 
which man is disobedient — first, his profits, or his ancient and outworn institutions; then the 
man himself is stricken. It is the method of progress. Even the magicians yielded before the 
ulcers and tumors of the people. Political and ecclesiastical magic goes down before realities. 
Liberty and truth cannot hide unpleasant facts. When Moses and Aaron threw into the air the 
ashes from the huge furnaces, which were the emblems of their slavery, the spirit of freedom 
used the magic of their visible chains, as later, in writing “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” that spirit was 
able to bring a nation to its better ideal. Still Jehovah was unacknowledged by the throne of 
Egypt. Any victory without that acknowledgment, Moses knew, was a spiritual defeat. All 
real progress is by the advance of ideas. The harvest-growing fields of Egypt were swept with 
storm. 

“For what avails the plough or sail, 

Or land, or life, if freedom fail ? ” 

Man is not made for grain — grain exists for man ; and at such crises, mau untrue to his destiny 
is worthless. Let the grain fail! “ I am Jehovah .” 1 

Again the humbled Pharaoh listened awhile to the warning voices. Moses was instant 
upon the essential thing: “Ye will not yet fear Jehovali-Elohim.” ~ It is significant that the 
reformer tries to help Pharaoh from one step to the next, using what he has acknowledged iu 
connection with what he ought to acknowledge—“ Jehovah-Elohim ,” he says. It was more 
evident than ever that Moses could not afford, and was not seeking, a personal triumph. God 
had said to Pharaoh through him: “ How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before 

me ? ” 3 Moses had seen God in the bush; he was getting into the habit of realizing that the 
meaning in things is God. The Apostle’s account of him strikes the secret and opens it. It 
was summed up in this: 11 He endured, as seeing him who is invisible .” 4 It must he God’s 
victory over Pharaoh, or it is worthless to Moses and Israel. 

Even Pharaoh’s servants now labor with the stubborn ruler. Compromises are offered by 
the throne; but to have accepted them, on the part of Moses, would have been for him to have 
lost what, Burke says, the statesman always must guard in any compromise — “the immediate 
jewel of the soul.” The men of Israel would not go without their families and flocks. No 
irony of the king moved them, as he prated of their seeking to do evil. “ Jehovah will be with 
you ! ” 5 was his sneer. The visitation of locusts came. The earth was beclouded and the fields 
were a desolation. Formerly Israel had asked only to go away to her feast — an event which 
was attended with such sacrifice of rams and oxen as would have offended the devotees of Apis, 
Osiris and Isis; but now, they say boldly that their cattle must go with them; and it is a 
journey from which a return is not mentioned any more. Still Pharaoh resisted. Moses and 
Aaron were ordered from his sight. 

Once more Jehovah made the attack, and this time, upon the loftiest bulwark of rebellious 
antagonism. Supreme above all gods, in the thought of Egypt, was the sun. According to 
their religious ideas and devotion, Pharaoh was the Incarnate Sun-god. Heliopolis was to this 
deity what Athens was to Athene of Greece. There flashed the waters of the sacred spring of 
healino-; there, in contrast with the lonely obelisk of to-day, shadowing the tamarind and fig 
tree, rose the gorgeous edifice near the sacred lake and grove, its approach gleaming with yellow 
marble; Jits main gateway ornamented with a vast and brilliant disk of the sun. And now the 

1 Exodus vi, 2. 2 Exodus ix, 30. 3 Exodus x, 3. 4 Hebrews xi, 27. 5 Exodus x, 10. 



236 


THE TRIUMPH OF JEHOVAH. 


god supreme within all the Egyptian pantheon was hidden. The whole of Egypt except Goshen 
was covered with darkness. Surely there is much to learn here. The very earth, life itself, 
is meaningless, in all history — man sees nothing and can do nothing truly, when right is 
unobeyed, pleading for liberty. One radiant beam of unconfessed truth has often put the idol¬ 
ized sun of a generation into eclipse. Then Pharaoh again summoned Moses to his throne. 
The earlier Lorenzo de Medici calls for his Savonarola. Stern, as was the Florentine idealist 
when he~ cried: “ Restore the liberties of Florence! ” Moses refused his offered compromise. 
As the calm and stalwart Jew left the angered Egyptian alone, he said: “ I will see thy face 
again no more.” 1 

o 

Now that the false strength of the idolatry of Egypt had been made apparent and the faith 
of the Jewish population had received the needed education which these-events imparted, there 
was but one thing likely and needful to come into the life of the Hebrews from whose dwellings 
in Goshen the sunlight had not vanished. That one object lesson God would now give them ; 
it would unify them, and at the same time it would distract their foes. The event was at hand 
that would make even Pharaoh rejoice in Israel’s departure at any cost and in any way. 
When, in obedience to God’s command, the Hebrews had asked presents from the Egyptians, 
“jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment ,” 2 they were given many things which were 
sure to be of value to them. But Egypt could make no such priceless contribution as came to 
their spiritual life and hope in the institution of the Passover feast. A new calendar was 
created by this fact, each year thereafter beginning with the commemoration of their birthday 
as a nation. Out of great travail was Israel to come forth from Egypt. To Israel, it was an 
hour of joy. On the tenth day of the “ month of ears ,” Abib , 3 each family must choose its 
sacrifice — an unblemished male kid or lamb. Each sacrifice should be no more than a meal 
for a household, or, if a household were too small, then it should not be too large for the house¬ 
hold and others properly invited to consume it. “ Between the evenings ”— that is, between 
sunset and moonrise, or starlight — the kids or lambs chosen were to be killed by the congrega¬ 
tion. Each family was to sprinkle some of the blood “ on the side posts and the upper door¬ 
posts of the houses.” 4 For this, a branch of the cleansing hyssop was to be used. Then the 
feast was to be consumed. Sandaled and girdled, prepared also for instant departure with staff' 
in hand, they were to eat hastily and refuse to leave the house that night. All the flesh not 
eaten was to be consumed with fire. That night the Lord was to pass through the land of 
Egypt. In his visitation, every firstborn child and the firstborn offspring of the beasts would 
be smitten, save those in the houses whose lintels bore the blood mark. That feast should 
signify Israel’s redemption from Egypt’s death, by the blood of innocence. It was to fore¬ 
shadow the coming sacrifice, the Christ of God who is our passover. Every householder was as 
yet the only priest of his family. They were also to observe at this hour the feast of unleav¬ 
ened bread. Later on, through the unleavened bread, they were to look back to an hour 
when, in haste, “ they took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being 
bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders .” 5 

The night came. Jehovah moved through Egypt, and the midnight air echoed with the 
cry of death. At last, Jehovah was triumphant over the gods of Egypt. In this desperate 
hour, Moses and Aaron were sought by the king. The people of his realm had at length 
beseeched him, “ Let them go, else we be all dead men ! ” “ Go,” cried out Pharaoh, “ go and 

serve Jehovah. Take your flocks and herds, as ye have said, and begone.” 6 At last he had 
acknowledged Jehovah. Then, as if his heart felt the foregleam of that bright noon, stream¬ 
ing from Canaan through the long years, over wandering and exile, and falling over the 
grave of his own firstborn who had perished that night, he added : 11 And bless me also ! ” 7 No 


1 Exodus x, 29. 

3 Exodus xii, 32. 


2 Exodus xii, 35. 
7 Exodus xii, 32. 


3 Exodus xii, 3. 


4 Exodus xii, 22, 23. 


5 Exodus xii, 34. 




THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT 






















































































































































238 


THE JEWISH NATION BORN. 


one can look upon the monument, now in the museum at Berlin, which is said to commemorate 
this child of the bereaved Egyptian monarch, without hearing in his heart the echo of that 
pathetic appeal, “And bless me also ! ” 

In all comparative study of crowned heads, Pharaoh appears to be most like a seventeenth 
century Charles I. or an eighteenth century Marie Antoinette. It is as impossible not to sym¬ 
pathize with his sorrow and perplexity when he cries, “And bless me also ! ” as it is to withhold 
a generous fellow-feeling when the finely bred English king is brought to the block, or the 
pride of the French palaces is carted to execution. It is also impossible, amidst even such 
scenes as those, to forget that the Egyptian monarch commanded weary Israel to make bricks 
without straw; the cavalier king annulled parliamentary government, and the haughty queen 
set her dainty foot upon popular right. 

Egypt had lost her slaves; in the echo of that wail, they slipped from her grasp. It had 
been impossible for Meneplitah to succeed in holding a progressive people, leagued as were the 
Hebrews with the progressive Jehovah. Had the ruler granted their demands, his throne 
would have been a toy; but perhaps such thrones are most valuable only as toys. To neglect 
to do this was to offend the Almighty One. Now the great exodus had begun. More than two 
millions of Egypt’s productive human chattels had gone; but, far more wonderful than that fact 
alone, this multitude of slaves had been so educated by poverty and visions, so trained by sorrow 
and hope, that on that paschal night, as a mass penetrated, but not yet pervaded, with a con¬ 
ception of the supreme idea of liberty under law, they had stepped from bondage to freedom; 
and, rallying round the bones of Joseph, they leaped into the form of the noblest nationality 
of ancient times. It was the noblest, because the ideal for which it stood was fullest of creative 
and transforming hope. 


CHAPTER YI. 

FOLLOWING THE PILLAR OF CLOUD AND FIRE. 

S UCH a stupendous movement attracted to its multitude a crowd, made up not alone of 
Hebrews who joined them at point after point on their line of march, but also of peoples 
variously nurtured and moved by different motives. There were slaves, outcasts, and exiles, 
wandering shepherds, and, doubtless, here and there, came and followed a lover of liberty. 
Succoth furnished the great army with a halting place for the first night. Here, where the 
leafy booths offered them a new sort of hospitality, the world of the Orient beheld the first 
peaceful assemblage of so many devotees of the nobility of labor, the pricelessness of human 
beings; and here slept the largest army the world has ever seen, which has accomplished such 
a step toward freedom, with hands unstained by blood. As in the next few hours they baked 
their unleavened bread, and the leader made his plans and purposes more complete and 
apparent to the elders, they were the first representatives of the idea which has created for 
later days the ten dooms of every Alfred, the great remonstrance of Pym and Hampden, the 
declaration of independence of every Jefferson and Hancock, the emancipation proclamation of 
every Lincoln. Dean Stanley fitly reminds us how deeply Succoth, this “place of booths, or 
tabernacles,” must have impressed them, inasmuch as, later on, they used this very name to 
designate the gladsome Feast of Tabernacles. Indeed, it ought to be said here that no man 
more than Moses, no nation more than Hebrewdom, incarnates more truly the truth spoken by 
the English novelist and poet: “ Our finest hope is finest memory,” while, at the same time, 



SIGNIFICANCE OF GOD'S DEALINGS WITH ISRAEL. 


239 


being a witness to the truth which Emerson utters: “The contest between the Future and the 
Past is one between Divinity entering and Divinity departing.” In his death hour, Moses begs 
for the “good Avill of him who dwelt in the bush.” In the chapter of the Book of Exodus 
describing the events immediately succeeding the departure of Israel from Egypt, we are told 
that Jehovah spake of the eating of the unleavened bread, saying, “ Thou shalt tell thy son: 
This is done because of that which Jehovah did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt .” 1 
In the light of such memories as these — each a matrix of personal or national hope — Israel 
was able to reecho that startling and early proclamation of the equal rights of men: “ One 
law shall be to him that is liomeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” 2 
Noble memory is always prophecy. But the comprehensive understanding of all that Israel 
had been led to undertake and all that Jehovah and his prophets had uttered was not, by any 
means, as yet a national possession. Therefore, the “ wanderings ” began, as they were to con¬ 
tinue. Not to Canaan, by a route through Gaza, short and direct, would Jehovah lead them. 
They must be educated in the desert. As only by long and wearisome spiritual routes, which, 
indeed, often revert and cross each other, a man or a nation may reach a great truth and be 
able to see it, and willing devotedly to defend it, so the courage and intelligence, the faith and 
idealism equal to the future task of Hebrewdom in universal history had to be inspired, trained, 
and refined in their forty years of journeying in the wilderness. 

There is no straight road for any God-inspired soul to any Canaan. Forward, then, to 
Etham. By taking this route, Israel was escaping the fierce Philistines, and nothing could 
have been more unfortunate than for the exiles to have been compelled to fight this strong 
people at such a moment in their march. At Etham, in the edge of the wilderness, where the 
sand areas stretch away from the old green fields, rose before them the symbol of the guiding 
Jehovah. “ And Jehovah went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; 
and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night .” 3 

Just as Moses found his source of' ideals and aims in the burning bush of Horeb, so Israel 
found a perpetual commandment and culture for the long wilderness journey in this pillar of 
cloud and fire. It was more to Israel than was to Greece the great Alexander’s brazier, whose 
combustibles, lit for illumination, flamed from the top of a lofty pole, elevated at the spot where 
the mighty captain had his pavilion whence he directed his army. It may have been connected 
with some older ideas which made fire a sacred symbol; it doubtless was related to the symbol¬ 
ism of the burning bush. It was, as we shall see, the second in the series of God’s educative 
emblems. By being at once a flame at night and a cloud by day, it told of truth, righteous¬ 
ness, love, beauty, which lead and protect, each of which furnishes an ensign by which the 
devoted soul may march on from duty to duty at all times. 

In this and in all uses of its meanings, we must see that, as the value of every lawgiver, 
like Moses, lies in his ability to get man on to the Christ, in whom we find the “ law of 
liberty ,” 4 so every symbol which has progress in it for those who follow it must contain an 
anticipation of that complete symbol of God, his Christ. This is God’s child-garden system of 
education. “ The law was our tutor, leading us to Christ.” In that tutoring, as in the use of 
all symbols of truths or realities in any true system of culture, each early emblem leads into, 
and so foretells each that succeeds, until the consummate symbol is reached. So the burning 
bush is, so far as it is a symbol worthy of being obeyed at all, significant of a still more rich 
symbolism which at length presents the truth of God in its .highest form. The highest form of 
truth is not a burning bush, or a pillar of cloud and flame, not even Sinai’s law or a holy 
institution; but the highest form of truth is personal humanity. Everything in God’s system 
of education tends toward the incarnation of God in man. At last, as the Kevelation says, 
even “ the Tabernacle of God is with men ” 5 and the revelator, beholding a picture of complete 


Exodus xiii, 8. 


2 Exodus xii, 49. 


3 Exodus xiii, 21. 


4 Janies i, 25, or ii, 12. 


5 Revelation xxi, 3. 




240 


MANKIND TAUGHT THROUGH SYMBOLS. 


civilization, writes: “ I saw no temple therein .” 1 Incarnation is the highest form of reality 
under God. The Incarnate may say: “I and the Father are one .” 2 Jesus Christ is, therefore, 
the reality to which, for example, the burning bush leads by its symbolism. He is the one per¬ 
sonality ever burning with love, faith, truth, holiness, yet not consumed. As much is true of 
the pillar of cloud and flame. It is more than a relic of fire worship, if, indeed, that enters into 
it at all. It is a waymark to divine humanity, earlier than the Shechinah, leading up to and 
into the Shechinah, which, in due course, because it is higher, is still more close to the highest 
symbol in this divine culture. That pillar of cloud and fire afterward rested upon the Most 
Holy Place, and the prophet Isaiah saw it, as in perfect accord with this developing scheme, 
“upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion .” 3 Therefore, St. Augustine touched the core of 
Christianity as a consummate stage in God’s culture of humanity, after this method, when he 
said: “ The true Shechinah is man.” Thus, there is no more penetrative or sympathetic state¬ 
ment of the connection between local Israel and universal humanity, in this history, than 
the Apostle’s words, when he says: “ All these things happened to them by way of figure .” 4 
Before that sacred wonder, they mused of Canaan by day, and beneath its splendor they 
dreamed of its milk and honey by night. Because they thus dreamed and often forgot the 
vision of something higher than milk and honey, they needed this kindergarten-like emblem as 
they had needed many other symbols of God’s education before. Israel was yet “ a child .” 5 

All had gone well thus far, for water and food were in abundance, and the loneliness and 
peril of their situation, as in this state of contesting ignorance and intelligence they marched 
farther from the old scenes, and the surety of “ three meals a day and a place to sleep in,” had 
not yet fallen like a shadow upon them to oppress their hearts. Nothing in this world costs so 
much as liberty, save righteousness, and without righteousness there is no liberty. All this 
Israel had to learn in forty years — a lesson which thousands of years of efforts at civilization 
have as yet failed to teach the human race thoroughly. Man reverts. Safety as to food and 
drink and a bed to sleep in, the first of the good things of life, is an old goal to which all ideal¬ 
ists are wont to look back longingly, in the first lonely confronting of those problems which 
come with every effort for true freedom. Dull compliance with any situation which guarantees 
these bodily comforts seems half a heroism, especially when the past, which has always furnished 
them, is turned into a foe. All efforts at liberty mean the enthronement of the soul above the 
body; and slavery had emphasized the value of the body in the life of these Hebrews; and 
under the fortress walls of Etham the soul’s concern — freedom — appeared less sublime than 
when the body was stung with a slave-whip. The soul of Israel trembled on her new throne. 
The command came : “ Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn back .” 6 Backward to 

“ encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-Zephon ! ” 7 Moses 
knew Israel’s weakness and strength at a point like this. Enemies were everywhere, the for¬ 
tress soldiery of Etham, the rulers of the South who were as yet unexcited; Pharaoh was sure 
to repent of his act of permission, and Moses could already hear the war-chariots of Egypt in 
the rear. The somewhat extemporaneous courage of Israel was not to be depended upon. The 
huge caravans were as yet orderless and undisciplined; and now they were murmuring, while 
their petty misunderstandings and little selfishnesses were leading them at length to complaining 
criticism and base clamor against Moses; the gleaming chariots of Pharaoh were rolling toward 
them in hot pursuit. The value of liberty was vanishing. They had felt the oppression of the 
fact that something had compelled them to turn back. Progress comes often by apparent 
retreat. Then the wilderness seems a huge and fearful place of death. 

For fifty miles they had journeyed to the “place where the reeds grow,” and from that 
camp, near to the present Suez, they sent up their wail. The Egyptian army, thinking that 


1 Revelation xxi, 22. 2 John x, 30 (Revised Version). 

5 Hosea xi, 1. 6 Exodus xiv, 2. 7 Exodus xiv, 2. 


3 Isaiah iv, 5. 


4 1. Corinthians x, 11. 



.4 NIGHT OF DREAD. 


241 


Moses become entangled in the land,” and that “the wilderness” had “shut them in ,” 1 
enraged that the evident intention of Israel was to escape from bondage, and probably relying 
on news from the garrison, sent its cavalry to bring back or destroy the exiles. It was a great 
opportunity for a force which was at that hour at its finest condition. The chivalry of Egypt, 
driving highly bred horses and riding in chariots which roll yet in the incised temple-tale at 
Karnak, had_now their moment of glory. Probably the long days of mourning over the deaths 
Egypt’s firstborn had added to the fierceness of their attack, after having delayed it for sev¬ 
enty days. Ebbtide, the hour for the receding flood in the Red Sea, which was now immediately 
in front of Israel, came as slowly as their caravans approached. There was no other path for 
them, save the way through the waters. Mountains frowned from west and south ; the rush of 
dust-covered royal cavalry mingled with the lisping of the waves on the beach. “ Because there 
were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast 
thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt ? Is not this the word that we did tell 
thee in Egypt, saying: Let us alone, that we may "serve the Egyptians? For it has been better 
for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness .” 2 This was all that 
Israel had to give to the sorely perplexed and burdened commander. Never did a feeble faith¬ 
lessness in the worth of freedom, or a cheap cynicism in the presence of Jehovah’s invisible 
resources, more offensively bedeck itself in its own rags. 


“Though love repine and reason chafe, 
There came a voice without reply, 


’Tis man’s perdition to be safe 

When for the truth he ought to die. 


This voice, as yet, they were not able to hear. 


CHAPTER VII. 


THE RED SEA. 



ONDERFUL as is the weakness of humanity, it is never quite so wonderful as the 


’ * strength of God. As human history reveals mankind, it does not appear marvelous that 
“ they were sore afraid ,” 3 and that Egypt, which had taught them by its cities of the dead an 
almost fantastic belief as to the value of sepulture, should come before them as a fitter place to 
die in than was this desert. The hour had now come when that rod, once a serpent — the 
emblem of power seized for noble purposes — must be lifted up in dauntless faith. Night came, 
as night full of doubt and full of vision always comes when any soul or nation, led by divine 
influences, comes up to a circumstance apparently fatal to its progress. That night gave to the 
host of Israel a deeper meaning for the pillar of cloud and fire. Such times of trial to human 
faith in the supreme value of righteousness and freedom always disclose a fact which comes, as 
did the fiery cloud, between the hosts of Israel and the hosts of Egypt. That fact is Jesus 
Christ. This hour with Israel held a foregleam of him; and it gives an intimation of his 
place in the philosophy of history. His personality, his life, his ideal — these are pillars of 
cloud and fire in the process of history. History is largely the record of a perpetual flight of 
Israel out . of Egypt, toward freedom. Always to Egyptlike conservatism and despotism this 
personal fact, Christ Jesus, is a cloud that bewilders and darkens — for unadvancing antiquity 
and selfishness never understands him; while, to Israel’s faith in progress, even though it 
falters, this same fact, inextinguishable and serene, is a perpetual and kindly illumination. “ It 

1 Exodus xiv, 3. 2 Exodus xiv, 11,12. 3 Exodus xiv 10. 




242 


DROWNING OF THE EGYPTIANS. 


was a cloud and darkness to them, hut it gave light hy night to these, so that the one came not 
near the other all the night .” 1 

Israel had followed the emblem to the sea’s edge. “ Wherefore criest thou unto me ? ” 
said the resourceful God, who would be trusted only by action; “ speak unto the children of 
Israel, that they go forward .” 2 Over the sea the rod was lifted up, by the calm faith of Moses. 
Over the path left beneath its shadow, as the waves rolled back on either hand, the solemn and 
wondering Hebrews marched dry-shod. Their advance, however, was not enough. It is never 
enough that good may conquer: evil must be extirpated. The pursuing Egyptians followed 
into the midst of the sea. The later song of the Psalmist indicates that a terrific thunderstorm 
burst upon them. This is the account in the book of Exodus: “ And it came to pass, that in 
the morning watch Jehovah looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and 
of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels, that they 
drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for 
Jehovah figliteth for them against the Egyptians. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Stretch out 
thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their 
chariots, and upon their horsemen. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the 
sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; 
and Jehovah overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. And the waters returned and 
covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after 
them .” 3 

St. Paul, who seems to be attracted constantly to state and restate the problem and triumph 
of Israel, puts it all into these eloquent words: “ They were all baptized unto Moses in the 
cloud and in the sea .” 4 

So much for Israel, and so much for Egypt. A national tragedy, almost fatal to the 
throne of Egypt, had at length succeeded the long and agonizing years of Israel’s bondage. 
Retribution came, and every anguish had its compensation in the scales of Jehovah. Looked 
at from the point of view already taken, it does not at all detract from the present and perma¬ 
nent meaning to mankind of such a disaster to Egypt, which was also a victory for Jehovah 
and a deliverance to Israel, if any of the many explanations of the occurrence of the awful 
event he adopted, wholly or in part. None of them, however, appear to be entirely satisfactory. 
Travelers and scholars of the first rank have given the most thorough research and wide learn¬ 
ing to this fragment of the world. From Strabo, and Josephus, and Diodorus of Sicily to 
Napoleon I., Niebuhr, Stanley, and Professor Palmer, every scrap of information concerning 
the past and present condition and location of these waters and mountains has been drawn into 
service, to make it less difficult for less believing minds to account for these unmatched inci¬ 
dents. Doubtless, the waters of the Red Sea, at that date, may have occupied a larger area. 
The ebb and flood tides have been shown to be almost obedient to the strong northeast winds. 
Islets that look like huge stepping stones, with narrow and deep waters between, are still seen 
when the wind drives the waters southward. Sandbanks and fords have been found that might 
have felt the trembling feet of the Hebrew exiles. Traditions tell of hours when, as Diodorus 
says, “ the whole bay at the head of the sea was laid bare.” A Greek historian of Hebrewdom 
speaks of the opinion of the priests of Memphis that Moses here called into service his accurate 
knowledge of the tides. This writer alludes also to the opposite opinion of the priests of 
Hieropolis, which leaves the event a miracle in which fire balls blinded the Egyptians when 
they essayed to follow the Hebrews. Geikie, who admirably gathers these and other opinions 
and facts, does well to quote the wise remark of Niebuhr: “ It would be a great mistake to 
imagine that the passage of such a great caravan could have been effected hy purely natural 
means.” It is well to reflect that even if the event were in due course of nature, as we 


1 Exodus xiv, 20. 


2 Exodus xiv, 15. 


8 Exodus xiv, 24-28. 


4 1. Corinthians x, 2. 






THE DESTRUCTION OF PHARAOH’S HOST. 



























244 


MOSES' SONG OF TRIUMPH. 


understand nature, God’s will and action are not ruled out, and the fact is fully as significant as 
before. Not the extraordinary, but the ordinary processes of nature and life are those which 
God has chosen most often to be his ministers and his revelation. 

From that hour, the throne of the Pharaohs was falling to pieces. The permanent fact 
which all this history contributes is that the righteous progress of man under God has met and 
will ever meet indubitable difficulty, Red Seas of peril that appear fatal; and in these, some¬ 
how and sometime, Jehovah executes judgment, saves the hosts of right, and brings disaster to 
the hosts of wrong. 

Out of this peril came forth the richest national anthem in the annals of time. “ Then 
sang Moses and the children of Israel.” 1 

It is a saying as old as Fletcher of Saltoun: “ Let me make the songs of a nation, and I 
care not who makes their laws.” William Pitt confessed the unique value of Dibdin’s sea songs 
in the hour when England needed something besides his genius for finance and the Iron Duke’s 
sword. It is well-nigh impossible, in this connection and in view of the echoes of music which 
come to us from its use on fields of battle and in the more difficult crises of peace at later times 
in Hebrew history, to overstate the value of that unequaled ode of triumph which, at this glad 
hour, burst forth from the heart of Israel. Grand moments grandly apprehended and used by 
grand souls — these alone may produce grand poems. As the Divine Comedy of Dante and the 
“ Paradise Lost” of John Milton were the utterances of a later Puritanism, so was this magnifi¬ 
cent song of Moses the outpouring of that earlier Puritanism which made all recent victories of 
the same spirit possible. It is not only the oldest triumphal ode in any literature; it is the 
richest deposit of gems shining upon the diadem of any young nation. It not only sounds the 
deeps and heights of the genius of Hebrewdom; it has furnished to her succeeding ages the 
noblest currents of prophecy. Psalms and battle cries, mystic foretellings and solemn anthems, 
have grown resonant with melody, by catching for a theme some single strain, or echoing to 
other times some separate chord of its harmony. It possesses the historic spirit and the poetic 
manner of the “ Iliad ” of Homer, who was as yet unborn, and the urgent faith and particular 
yearning of the “Ein’ Feste Burg ist Unser Gott” of Martin Luther — the Moses of German 
song and piety. It is closer to the soul of Israel than the Marseillaise is to that of France, and 
its measures are as much more rich in creative power as was that revolution above the revolution 
of 1789. “ Rule Britannia ” of England and the “ Heil Dir Im Siegeskranz ” of Germany were 

not born out of any such matrix of divine energy, and they seem as patriotic lays in comparison 
with this trumpet-toned hymn of God’s delivered ones. America has met two revolutions and 
crossed two Red Seas, without producing a soul equal to the task of so justly singing her joy 
and hope. The craggy elevation from which the leader of that vast choir uttered the first 
words is not known; the dancing maidens whose happy lips caught the refrain have been dust 
for thousands of years; Miriam and her choral multitude, the wave-like mass of chanting 
Hebrew soldiers, the solemn instruments strung with such intensity of feeling — all these have 
vanished; but so poetically and potently does this great lyric enshrine the life of the Jew in all 
time, so strenuous with involved hope for all mankind is this triumphal poem, that to-day it is 
repeated each Sabbath in Hebrew temples, sung in Christian cathedrals, and yonder in heaven 
they who have overcome by the blood of the Lamb “ sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, 
and the song of the Lamb.” Israel had taken another vast stride toward nationality. She was 
possessed of a national hymn, at once her declaration of independence and her song. With 
the utterance of its strophes, not only was the antiphony instituted in Hebrew music, but 
theocratic government found a surer place in universal politics. It is not to the purpose to say 
that it was a compilation of fragments, or that it is a collection of earlier psalms. The genius 
of Homer probably made the “ Iliad ” of the ballads sung on Grecian streets ; and Taine says: 


1 Exodus xv, 1. 



rr 



MIRIAM, OR THE SONG OF TRIUMPH 
























246 


THE ODE QUOTED. 


“ It is the Grecian Bible.” It required a fiery soul to fuse these materials into such an imper¬ 
ishable monument of literature; and the “ Iliad ” is certainly not more Homeric than this ode 
is Mosaic. Even the negative critical spirit of Bleek allows that “ a genuinely Mosaic song lies 
at the foundation ” of the poem. The important fact is that it is the heart-beat of Israel throb¬ 
bing with all the significance of the hour in which her nationality was conscious of itself. 

“I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: 

The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 

The Lord is my strength and song, 

And he is become my salvation : 

This is my God, and I will praise him ; 

My father’s God, and I will exalt him. 

The Lord is a man of war: 

The Lord is his name. 

Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea : 

And his chosen captains are sunk in the Red Sea. 

The deeps cover them: 

They went down into the depths like a stone. 

Thy right hand, O Lord, is glorious in power, 

Thy right hand, O Lord, dasheth in pieces the enemy. 

And in the greatness of thine excellency thou overthrowest them that rise u}^ 
against thee : 

Thou sendest forth thy wrath, it consumeth them as stubble. 

And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were piled up, 

The floods stood upright as an heap ; 

The deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea. 

The enemy said, 

I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil: 

My lust shall be satisfied upon them; 

I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them. 

Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them : 

They sank as lead in the mighty waters. 

Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? 

Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, 

Fearful in praises, doing wonders? 

Thou stretchest out thy right hand, 

The earth swallowed them. 

Thou in thy mercy hast led the people which thou hast redeemed: 

Thou hast guided them in thy strength to thy holy habitation. 

The peoples have heard, they tremble : 

Pangs have taken hold on the inhabitants of Philistia. 

Then were the dukes of Edom amazed; 

The mighty men of Moab, trembling taketh hold upon them: 

All the inhabitants of Canaan are melted away. 

Terror and dread falleth upon them; 

By the greatness of thine arm they are as still as a stone; 

Till thy people pass over, O Lord, 

Till the people pass over which thou hast purchased. 

Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, 
The place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, 

The sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established. 

The Lord shall reign for ever and ever.” 1 

1 Exodus xv, 1-18 (Revised Version). 




CHAPTER VIII. 

THE WILDERNESS OF. SHUR.-MARAH AND ELIM.-THE MANNA. 

IV/TOSES and Israel were now in the peninsula of Sinai: he and Israel knew Jehovah now 
better than ever before. Again the Hebrew and Midian — the man and his circumstances 
— confronted one another. With what different and larger responsibilities did the leader look 
again upon that apparent confusion of broken mountains, sandy plains, nestling patches of 
verdure, torrent paths, dwarfed and stunted trees, and the few perennial springs — the very 
territory in whose valleys he had tended the pasturing flocks of Jethro years before, now the 
training ground for the Hebrew nation. 

Nations are born in the hour of some great agony, at the moment when wrong overreaches 
itself; they become conscious of their own individual vitality at some Red Sea. At such 
moments, they feel themselves possessed of their own melody which is to be fully expressed in 
years of national progress and achievement. This is the hour of song, of poetic vision, of trans¬ 
cendental faith. After this experience is passed, the finest statesmanship has always foreseen 
Sinai. Liberty is not a gift vouchsafed at once, at the beginning of a life, or at the commence¬ 
ment of a nation’s career. It is a fruit — the latest and best of time. It is an end toward 
which each songful declaration of independence, such as was this triumphal ode, or the American 
Declaration of Independence, is only an early and long stride. Between the hour of that 
outburst of song — which is always largely a protest and a faith — and the far-off hour when 
freedom is safe because freedom is true, there is no spot so sacred, because so necessary, as a 
Sinai where law establishes its authority. From the hour of the revelation of law, constitution¬ 
alism dates its molding and restraining operation on any people. Declarations of independence 
and songs of national birthtime make the atmosphere which the new commonwealth breathes. 
Law creates a pathway, makes the mass interdependent, and transforms what is only a mob into 
a government. Law is the source of precedents; and a crude 

“Freedom slowly broadens down from precedent to precedent,” 
at last reaching toward a finer freedom in which at length is possible “ the parliament of man, 
the federation of the world.” 

Every step was now a step toward Sinai. These days were as important to these wan¬ 
derers as the days between the Fourth of July, 1776, and the day of the meeting of the 
convention which wrought out the constitution were to the American republic. The Wilder¬ 
ness of Shur, into which Israel was now led from the camp of Ayun Musa, was truly the 
wilderness of “the wall.” Behind them was Africa; before them were the desert and the 
future. A gigantic range of peaks, now known as Jebel-er-Rahali, formed the wall which, 
coming close to the Red Sea, continues in the greater chain of Jebel-et-Tih on the north. 
Standing with memories of the green fields of Egypt immediately behind them, this mass of 
rock, desert, and difficulty directly confronted them. Three days had passed, and the weary 
marchers had exhausted the supplies of water obtained at Ayun Musa. Following the pillar of 
cloud and flame, they had come to wady after wady, each a dry torrent-bed, serviceable only as 
offering them a way through the masses of stone, silent gravel-wastes and the few green patches 
which were as thirsty as the pilgrims. Again it was demonstrated that, as yet, they set no 
high value upon liberty. True freedom faded in minds at that moment not sufficiently cultured 
to comprehend or appreciate. In their complaining, one hears the footsteps of forty years which 
must come and go before they get to the true ideas of what liberty really is and what it is worth. 
God puts Canaan farther away, at every occasion in the life of a nation or a soul, when it is 

247 


248 


THE WATERS OF MAR All. 


certain that there is no conviction that liberty is faith in the divine order and that it is worth 
all it costs. The Ayun Musa, which is now a beautiful summer resort, with its nineteen wells, 
seemed the last spot of the golden age which is ever behind us when we doubt God. Israel was 
living so as to teach all men. Every rich life, the career of every highly inspired people, in 
proportion as life is subject to divine enriching, or the nation is visited with divine inspirations, 
seems to be an oscillation between hours where some Red Sea furnishes too much water and a 
desert where there is too little. There was a confronting sea ; here is severe thirst. 

But yonder is a green spot. It is, however, at this moment, bitter. The name is Marah — 
“ bitter.” 1 And it is not remarkable that Israel was disappointed there. The fierce light of the 
sun beating upon the hills fell, as from a heated wall, upon their suffering caravans. At Marah, 
which is the Huwarah of our day, even yet the expectant traveler is met with the natives shout¬ 
ing to him, as he seeks refreshing, “ Bitter! Bitter! ” The geography of the soul likewise 
changes in no important particular. Just as that soil, filled with nitre, makes the spring unfit 
for quenching thirst, however sweet and refreshing the water itself might be if the solution 
might only rid itself of that which is within it; so the circumstances out of which, or through 
which, many a healthful impulse or ennobling emotion comes makes it bitter and worse than 
useless. What does God do for his Israel, in such a case ? Israel always murmurs here. The 
soul, at such a pass, usually looks back to its old chains, where at least water was plentiful, and 
complains that following an ideal costs too much. Moses shared in their want and suffering; 
the best that is in us feels the agony as much as the worst, even if, like Moses, it has always 
the support which comes of a devoted love of high aims and has counted their cost. It never¬ 
theless has to pay the expense of having an ideal. Then, as if in contrast, the less open-eyed 
and faithful qualities of our nature, like the children of Israel, cry out — it is all they know; it 
indicates the level at which they live—“What shall we drink?” Man is always asking this 
question at the brink of some bitter problem. So rich, however, is God’s universe, and so thor¬ 
ough is his education of souls that somewhere near the problem itself is something , which, if 
cast into it, will make it sweet. Here is the ancient record: “ Jehovah showed him a tree, 
which, when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet.” 2 The Arab natives 
assured Lesseps that it was their practice to put barberry branches into such pools and that 
they made the water fit to drink. Josephus asserts that “ bad water was once purified by 
throwing in certain split pieces of wood.” Life’s bitterest experiences exist to be sweetened 
by the use of unsuspected and medicinal facts, which also have no value until they are used in 
connection with difficulties. 

It must be noted that hitherto, and far beyond this hour, Israel had found nothing of what 
our earthy political economy, with its fatal worship of statistics, calls wealth. Rich land and 
fortune-bearing streams do not appear. Jehovah builds the greatness of a people out of spirit¬ 
ual discoveries. Part of the permanent wealth of Israel lay in the bitterness of Marah and the 
healing barberry branches. It was realized, as such wealth is always coined, by the command¬ 
ing influence of an idea; even as the rocks and thin soil of New England responded at a later 
day to the same Puritan spirit and made rich and heroic the New England character. 

Another birth-hour for an everlasting principle, capable of being wrought into life and 
statesmanship, had come. The Lord “ made for them a statute and an ordinance.” 3 This was 
the ordinance: “ If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do 
that which is right in his sight, and will give ear to his commandments, and keep all his stat¬ 
utes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for 
I am Jehovah, thy physician.” 4 Here is a forelook toward Sinai and the lawgiving. That is a 
suggestive phrase : “ all his statutes.” This statute which was then given was the statute which 
really included all succeeding statutes. Liberty is a child of law; and the deliverance of any 


1 Exodus xv, 23. 


2 Exodus xv, 25. 


3 Exodus xv, 25. 


* Exodus xv, 26. 



MURMURINGS OF THE ISRAELITES. 


249 


people from the diseases of a despotism is first a deliverance of that people to a law that orders 
their conduct. There is no commonwealth where it is not true that duty is as important a 
word as privilege, and the responsibilities of citizens are as large as their rights. This is 
accomplished only by and through law. Obedience of law is fundamental to freedom. “ I will 
walk at liberty,” says the Psalmist, “ for I seek thy precepts.” 1 “ There,” says the sacred 

record, “ he proved them.” Moses never showed forth the divine statesmanship to better 
advantage. Not with prating about liberty, not with shouting about rights, but with allegiance 
to constitutional forms, seeking even desirable changes by constitutional methods, is any people 
“proved ” worthy to take the next step Canaanward. To he “ proved ” unworthy, to fall into 
loud-mouthed praise of lawlessness, which is often miscalled freedom, is ultimately to contract 
the diseases of the Egyptians. The despotism of anarchy is the most leprous of all despotisms. 
In this way, among many others, God says: “I am Jehovah — Roplirek: ”— Jehovah — 
Physician . 2 

Immediately before them, now, lay the green plot toward which the pillar guided their 
steps. It was a veritable oasis, Elim. Fortunate, indeed, for their education in that constructive 
idealism which looks ever Canaanward, as it wanders in the desert, was the fact that they came 
to Marah before reaching Elim. This Elim was the most important of the desert’s water 
courses, “ where were twelve wells of water, and three-score and ten palm trees.” 3 There “ they 
encamped by the waters.” A whole month went by, as their herds fed upon the fertile 
pastures. It was probably what is now Wady Gharandel. On they journeyed into the delight¬ 
ful Wady Taiyibeh. As was Elim, so all this route was in beautiful contrast with bitter Marah. 
For a time by the Red Sea they had encamped; the tamarisks were in bloom; the cattle had 
been well fed, but before them their path now entered a vast sandy plain, stretching to the end 
of the peninsula, called the Wilderness of Sin. Passing out of the Murkhah, through the 
Wady-en-Nasb, they had found sweet waters, but at the edge of the wilderness they saw only 
famine and death. The last remnant of Egypt’s plenty was gone. Provisions had failed. 
Moses was equal to the crisis. Still the bush that burned with fire did not consume away. 
The great leader, who knew the wilderness so well, knew also Jehovah. “Would to God,” 
they cried to Moses and Aaron, “ that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of 
Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought 
us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” 4 

“ Would to God ” ! — this marked the level of their faith. They had even dropped the 
memorial name, Jehovah , out of their vocabulary in the violence of their complaint. Without 
that idea of God in the mind, all progress toward civilization costs more than it comes to. 
Some one fact must hopefully relate past, present, future, else the jostling events crash against 
one another, or they are so separate that courage and faith are drowned in the unknown abysses 
that yawn between. God had proposed to build their nationality out of the motives and inspira¬ 
tions contained in the new and memorial name, Jehovah — “I am that I am.” Under that new 
name they were to be educated. At this crisis, they had forgotten it. Surely, Canaan is far 
away. Egypt lay like a beautiful and vanished dream in yonder mist. This is an affair with 
Jehovah , as all human life is. Never has the whole congregation murmured before against both 
Moses and Aaron; now their complaining is unanimous. So does the stalwart captain under¬ 
stand it. Then said Jehovah to Moses, “ I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people 
shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they walk in 
my law or no.” 5 And Moses and Aaron, true to the inspiration flowing out of the memorial 
name, said to all the children of Israel: “At even, then shall ye know that Jehovah hath 
brought you out of the land of Egypt. And in the morning, then ye shall see the glory of 


1 Psalm cxix, 45. 
1 Exodus xvi, 3. 


2 Our Kevised Version says: “ I am the Lord that healeth thee.’ 
5 Exodus xvi, 4. 


3 Exodus xv, 27. 



250 


THE QUAILS AND MANNA. 


Jehovah; for that he heareth your murmurings against Jehovah: and what are we, that ye 
murmur against us ? ” 1 

What a transformation is to be noted here in the soul of the chieftain; he is eloquent; 
he was once conscious only of being “ slow of speech.” 2 Moses has found that true personal¬ 
ity which is strongest only when it has lost its self-consciousness in Jehovah. We may almost 
hear Jesus of Nazareth saying: “ Not I, but the Father; he doth the works.” 

At evening, the air was filled with enormous numbers of flying quail. They faltered and 
fell upon the ground, until it was alive with wings. This does not seem to have been a strange 
thing in Egypt. Huge migratory flights of these birds often occur, and the weary birds fall in 
such numbers that they are easily taken, or killed by hand. The moment of their arrival, 
however, was divinely opportune; but perhaps not more so than is the moment of the most 
apparently commonplace event. Israel’s eye was not spiritually quick enough to behold God in 
the ordinary; the burning bush had impressed Moses alone. Surely Jehovah is not less inter¬ 
esting and wonderful because he is present in all history, and utters his will through all nature 
and natural processes. This is part of the teaching of the long exodus. Next day, “ when the 
dew that lay was gone up, behold upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small, round thing, 
as small as the hoar frost on the ground. And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one 
to another: It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is 
the bread which Jehovah hath given you to eat.” 3 

It was natural that they said, “ It is manna,” 4 for the word manna means, “ What is this t ” 
Certainly the Hebrews did not think that it was only the “ sugary exudation from the twigs of 
the tamarisk tree,” though this has, as Geikie says, been called “man, or manna, from the 
earliest ages.” “Possibly,” as Hitter says, “the objection to this, that this tamarisk manna is 
only found for a month or two in spring,” is answered by the fact that the Bible does not say 
that it fell every day in the year, but was, on the other hand, probably only an addition to the 
food that the Hebrews obtained in large quantities elsewhere. They made too much out of the 
event to allow us to think that it was only a “ rain of manna,” such as is known in the Orient. 
“ There is,” says Geikie, “ an edible lichen which sometimes falls in showers several inches 
deep, the wind having blown it from the spots where it grew and carried it onwards.” It has 
been suggested that both these theories have truth, inasmuch as there must have been two kinds 
of manna, one of which was “ ground in mills or beaten in mortars,” another of which would 
“ melt in the sun.” None of these, however, comport with the statement that a double quantity 
fell on the sixth day; and it is hardly to be supposed that, later on, the pot containing an omer 
of manna would have been preserved in the sanctuary, or that the Sabbath should have had its 
history so bound up with the double portion which does not become corrupt, if, to their thought, 
this was by any means an event less than miraculous. 

It is more to the point, for us who have our lives to live, that we be assured of the rich 
teaching unto all ages contained in this story. The history of Israel is not only the history of 
a people and the ideas and inspirations which made them a nation, but it is also the history 
of the process by which, at least with one people, God reveals his will and educational method. 
In the attainment of genuine freedom, the only definition of liberty which endures is that 
which Jesus Christ gave and which the whole life of Israel proves true: “Ye shall know the 
truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 5 Man is made free by the truth he knows in living 
experience. He knows it, only by trusting it. Of the coming of truth to man, and of the use 
of truth on this wilderness march, this history is perennially descriptive. A man, or a nation, 
gets just enough truth on hand for every day’s supply, and the law of truth is that, if it is not 
used, like the manna, it grows untrue. The most untrue souls in our world are those who are 
like the children of Israel who disobeyed Moses’ command, and sought to hoard the manna 


1 Exodus xvi, 6,7. 


2 Exodus iv, 10. 


3 Exodus xvi, 14,15. 


4 Exodus xvi, 15. 


5 John viii, 32. 



SYMBOLISM OF THE MANNA. 


251 


from day to day. These overwise persons pack truth up in the warehouses of accepted opinion, 
to be used at some future time, when the world shall hunger for it. Truth itself becomes a lie, 
unless it gets into flesh and blood at once. It is thus with all generous impulses, sweet senti¬ 
ments, and blessed inspirations; they are most full of blessing when they are fresh from God’s 
hands. The greatest people is the people that trusts the truth it sees absolutely and at once. 
No wise economy, or shrewd hoarding of truth, ever made a nation true. All fatal corruption 
of public sentiment comes from a heaven-sent truth, acknowledged and yet unobeyed — the 
omers of manna that wiseacres are keeping, because it is too valuable to be used up at present. 

Again, this whole procedure of God was a forelooking to the creation and growth of that 
divine humanity whose life is in Christ Jesus, for the production of which every government 
exists and to which what we call civilization is ministering — a humanity that lives “ not by 
bread alone.” How significant this episode of Israel’s life is in the life of mankind may be 
but partially understood when we read the words of the Book of Deuteronomy, assuring us that 
this was its meaning : “ By every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord, doth man 
live.” 1 It may be entirely understood when we go with the Son of Man into the wilderness 
where Christ was tempted. Here, as in the Wilderness of Sin, we feel the solidarity of the 
race: “ Who is weak, and I am not weak ? ” 3 Satan has challenged the Christ of God and Man 
to make the stones into bread. It is a long way this side of that hour when the Hebrew exiles 
are gathering their manna, but Christ’s victory was wrapped up in God’s proving of them and 
humanity there. The old words come to his lips, “ It is written,” he says, “ Man shall not live 
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” 3 It was, indeed, 
a great hour of “proving ” for all highest human interests in all time, when Jehovah gave 
Israel manna, and the law of its gathering and use; and Moses said: “ He will prove you 
whether ye walk in his law, or no.” 4 It led on to the hour when One such as was Savior came; 
and so heaven-sent and truth-incarnating was he, that he justly said: “ Your fathers did eat 
manna in the Wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, 
that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from 
heaven.” 5 It is not to be wondered at, that this training by symbols should afterward keep 
“the golden pot,” with its omer of manna, in the holiest of all, close by the rod of Aaron 
that budded and the tables of the Covenant, beneath the shining cherubim. 


CHAPTER IX. 

FROM THE FIRST BATTLEFIELD TO SINAI. 

S OON the hosts of Israel, by following through the grandeur and beauty of Wady Feiran, 
entered their first battlefield. They had escaped Philistines and southern princes by their 
obedience of Moses; now, however, on the high plain opening out before them, walled by moun¬ 
tains, they were to meet Amalek, who held the springs. The table-land was called Rephidim. 
The great peaks of Sinai were lit up with all their many-colored splendors; and these gorgeous 
walls had long been in sight as they had led their flocks and herds, children and women, 
through Wady Maghara, near one of whose neighboring mountains, Dophkah, they had en¬ 
camped. This spot was for ages the center of the Egyptian copper-mining region. From this 
place they had gone up to Alush. Here was nothing to compensate them for that weariness of 
body and soul which, amidst all this waste of rock and sand, had overtaken them. Perhaps 


Deuteronomy viii, 3. 


2 II. Corinthians xi, 29. 


3 Matthew iv, 4. 


4 Exodus xvi, 4. 


5 John vi, 49-51. 




252 * 


SYMBOLISM OF THE ROCK AND THE ROD. 


here were found, in the ancient mines, some suggestions of the wealth which Egypt had drawn 
upon; but it was the Egypt now hopelessly lost. Again the cry, “ Water ! Water! ” rose like a 
pathetic wail, and Moses heard it. Again, when they murmured, he reminded them of Jehovah. 
In accord with the divine command, he took the elders and the rod, which never meant so much 
as at that crisis, and as they approached a bare, brown rock, heated by the fierce sun, the rod 
was solemnly lifted up again. This time it smote the hardness of an apparently heartless cir¬ 
cumstance; and a rivulet of water running forth was the testimony that the most granitic fact 
which confronts human progress under God, has God’s overflowing heart throbbing within it. 

Another lesson had been taught to human faith. As the multitude behind heard the plash 
of waters, so gracious in their music, and they rushed with shouts to partake of its refreshing, 
they became the ancient representatives of the multitudes in all ages, who, without knowing of 
the perpetual miracle, are yet blessed with the results of obedient faith of the faithful. In 
whatsoever hard and bare fact to which Jehovah has ever led any nation, or man, by that pillar 
of cloud and flame, there lie to be revealed and to be used the hidden resources of the divine. 
Only a rod, like that of Moses, may open its treasure — a rod which is the emblem of power 
used for noble ends. That rod is a serpent when thrown on the ground, evil as Egyptian des¬ 
potism ; but it is a scepter of beneficent strength, when exalted by the hand of faith, gracious as 
God’s love. Faith in the heart of a people, hardened by conservatism and unproductive as stone 
of any generous enthusiasm, lias made a great financier the conqueror of Napoleon, by the 
treasure of England which flowed forth at his word. Webster said most truly of Alexander 
Hamilton, when the latter stood before the barren and hard poverty of the early American 
nationality: “ He smote the rock of the national resources, and abundant streams of revenue 
gushed forth.” Everything yields to noble ideas and loving sentiments. Even the human 
heart, often as hard and apparently fruitless as that rock in Horeb, pours forth its concealed 
wealth of hope and love at the touch of a rod embodying a worthy ideal. Still more profound 
is this history with its proclamation of human hope. St. Paul, again reverting to his favorite 
chapter of the story of mankind for an explanation of Jesus Christ and his unique place as the 
central and organizing fact of history, tells us that this Horeb rock was only an emblem, that 
it followed them, and that “they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that 
rock was Christ. ” 1 

It was while they were drinking of the stream that Israel’s rear, where all the feeble and 
faint and weary were huddled together, was fiercely attacked by a tribe of natives. They were 
probably Edomites, descendants of Esau, through his grandson, Amalek. It was a religious 
war — they “ feared not God.” 2 Here the descendants of Esau might have vengeance on the 
descendants of Jacob. Moses saw and understood. Against Jehovah, his plans and purposes, 
the enemy had come. Joshua was called into conspicuous service for the first time. He was 
commanded to fight against them with a picked band from Israel’s most courageous men. 
Again Moses found the rod of power. That rod was to be, also, a prayer, as every true power 
is. Ascending the height with Aaron and Hur, he saw the battle waged, its fortune turning 
with the position of his rod. When the rod, once a serpent — that emblem of power seized and 
used for noble purposes — was uplifted, all was well for Israel; when it fell, all seemed lost. 
His strong arms grew weary; Aaron and Hur stayed his hands. Sundown came. The 
Amalekites were routed, and the Lord proclaimed the utter destruction of the foe of Israel. 
Another and earlier crisis had added a new line and a touch of affectionate color to the portrait 
of the supreme power, which portrait was making itself on the soul of Israel, when God said: 
“I am Jehovah that healeth thee” — Jehovah, the Physician. Here and now, the mental 
picture received a similar addition. The Amalekites had despised the flag of Israel, on which 
Jehovah was written and rewritten by every experience. Because “ the hand of Amalek was 


1 1. Corinthians x, 4. 


Deuteronomy xxv, 18. 
































































































































































































































































































































254 


THE VISIT AND COUNSEL OF JETHRO. 


upon the banner of the Lord,” Moses built a monument altar, and called it “ Jehovah-Nissi,”— 
“ Jehovah , the Banner.” 1 So, in all ages, the evolution of the complete idea of God has come, 
through human experience. “ Physician ” — “ Banner ” ; and all the other ideas and hopes 
which have been uttered by man’s need, or yearning, or love, have been prophecies of Christ, 
who truly said, because he embodied each of them in his infinite glory: “He that hath seen me 
hath seen the Father .” 2 

The successful battle with the Amalekites, a proud and numerous people called by Balaam 
“ the first of the nations,” 3 doubtless tended to solidify the mass of Hebrew fugitives, and, by 
giving them a new trust in God and a crude self-respect, prepared them for nationality. Sinai 
was very near — they must have law and government. But before the momentous hour came 
to Moses, he was permitted a most interesting incident in the strenuous life he was living. 
“The Little Bird”—Zipporah, his wife—and the two sons, Gersliom and Eliezer, had been left 
with Jethro, his father-in-law, in Midian. To the wilderness where Moses “ encamped at the 
Mount of God ” 4 now came this priest of Midian, bringing his daughter, Zipporah, and the two 
sons. Jethro “ rejoiced for all the goodness which Jehovah had done to Israel.” 5 Whatever 
was Zipporah’s opinion of the man who had declined to have her accompany him in his severe 
task, Jethro sent his servant before him to Moses, who received him with Oriental courtesy 
and affectionateness. The Midianitisli priest had a profound sense of the greatness of Jehovah, 
and he professed it. He made burnt offerings and sacrifices, and then sat with Moses and 
Aaron and the elders at the sacrificial meal of fellowship. Both Moses and Jethro showed 
themselves men of true manhood during the whole visit. There is, however, a strange silence 
as to Zipporah and the sons. Moses will have an opportunity to prove his chivalry, as a hus¬ 
band, at a later time. But Jethro had a valuable contribution to make to the man who was 
marching Sinaiward. 

Moses had undertaken, for the whole people, the settlement of each and every case in 
dispute. With this administration of justice among all the people, the judge had certainly been 
prepared for that next great act of statesmanship which he would be called upon to perform. 
He had been already a lawgiver. But what Jethro saw most clearly was this — his son-in-law 
and friend was “ wearing away,” and the delays of justice were so many, by reason of the over¬ 
worked condition of their court, that the people were administering justice, or injustice, with 
their own hands. Never was there a more critical moment. Jethro offered his sagacious 
counsel, that Moses should divide these labors, appoint rulers of tens, of fifties, of hundreds, and 
of thousands, teach the people ordinances and laws, let the judges apply these to the cases 
brought before them, and, if any “ great matters ” made their appeal beyond the wisdom of these 
men, who were provided “from all the people — able men, such as fear God, men of truth, 
hating covetousness” 6 —let these be brought to Moses, who should bring “the causes unto 
God.” 7 It was an impulse Sinaiward, modestly given by what has been called the Gentile 
world to that Hebrewdom which was about to receive, through the loftiest of her sons, a law 
which is the basis and organon of the jurisprudence of the civilized world. 

The modern traveler, after having examined the extended literature pertaining to this 
fascinating subject, and having reverently visited what is now known as Mount Serbal’s gigantic 
peaks, set about with pinnacles, parted only by abysses, and hallowed by hoary tradition, will 
probably turn to the traditional Mount Sinai, equally celebrated by the legends of monks and 
the presence of consecrated buildings, to find a sufficiently large plain for the encampment of 
Israel, while they received the law. Having failed to find such a vast open space, and a brook 
“ that descended out of the mount,” such as the Bible story mentions, he will follow the feet of 
other scholars, through valleys and over smaller ranges to Horeb, as the cliffs on the northwest 


1 Exodus xvii, 15. 
8 Exodus xviii, 21. 


2 Johnxiv, 9. 3 Numbers xxiv, 20. 

7 Exodus xviii, 19. 


4 Exodus xviii, 5. 


5 Exodus xviii, 9. 



THE SOURCE OF JURISPRUDENCE. 


255 


of the Jebel-Musa are called, and agree with Dean Stanley as he saw “ the wide yellow plain 
sweeping down to the very edge of the cliffs, exactly answering to the plain on which ‘ the 
people removed and stood afar off,’ ” that here, after following up the Wady-es-Sheik until the 
huge plain of El-Raheh was reached by all the host, Israel stood, and, in the neighborhood of 
so much grandeur and an hour of such imperial significance, “all the people that was in the 
camp trembled.” 1 In these eloquent words, Dean Stanley describes the majestic scenery about 
Sinai, to which they had now come: “At each successive advance, these cliffs disengaged them¬ 
selves from the intervening and surrounding hills, and at last they stood out — I should rather 
say, the columnar mass, which they form, stood out — alone against the sky. On each side, the 
infinite complications of twisted and jagged mountains fell away from it. On each side the sky 
compassed it around as though it were alone in the wilderness. And to this great mass we 
approached through a wide valley, a long continuous plain, which, inclosed as it was between 
two precipitous mountain ranges of black and yellow granite, and having almost at its end this 
prodigious mountain-block, I could compare to nothing else than the immense avenue through 
which the approach was made to the great Egyptian temples.” “ The low lines of alluvial 
mounds at the foot of the cliff exactly answer to the ‘ bounds ’ which were to keep the people off 
from ‘ touching the mount.’ The plain itself is not broken, and unevenly and narrowly shut in, 
like almost all others in the range, but presents a long retiring sweep, against which the people 
could remove and stand afar off. The cliff, rising like a huge altar in front of the whole con¬ 
gregation and visible against the sky in lonely grandeur, from end to end of the whole plain, is 
the very image of the ‘ mount that might be touched ’ and from which the voice of God might 
be heard, far and wide, over the stillness of the plain below, widened at that point to its utmost 
extent by the confluence of all the contiguous valleys.” Here one may see how Moses might 
have descended from the height, as the sacred narrative relates, the host of Israel unseen, yet 
their shouting heard before he apprehended its real cause; and here also is a brook “ flowing 
down out of the mount.” 

More than four thousand five hundred feet above the sea’s level, the plain is confronted by 
the Horeb mountains, the loftiest peak attaining an altitude nearly three thousand feet greater 
than this, and between this plain and that height juts out the less lofty and altar-like elevation 
of Ras Sufsafeh, where Moses took leave of the elders. Members of the Ordnance Survey 
found peaks behind this mountain, whereupon Moses, having been forty days alone with God, 
might have come down into the vale, hear the shouting, and unable clearly to perceive 
operations in the camp. At a spring which flows here, crystalline and cool, the Bedouin 
tradition does not hesitate to say Moses watered the flocks of Jethro, in those days when he 
was not an emancipator, but only a son-in-law of Jethro. 

The imperial hour in the history of jurisprudence — the date of the revealing and the 
statement of those deepest and most fundamental laws which assure the success of the noble 
experiment of civilization, the opening moment of the era wherein justice itself became suf¬ 
ficiently just in human thought to be fearlessly trusted — this had almost come. As Israel 
drew near to it, the very approach of the revelation began to promise that specialization of 
Israel’s life by granting to them a unique vision of God’s ideal and thus imposing upon the 
Hebrew people a task so august and determinative in civilization that Jehovah said to them, in 
many ways, “Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. 
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” 2 This utterance was a 
stride toward the revelation of the ideal contained in Christianity. It was definitely to place 
the foundations of all civilization in man — not in things, not even in institutions, save as man’s 
servants and helpers. It was also to intimate the sacredness of all humanity — “ The earth is 
mine.” 3 It was to create a fervor of patriotism, accentuating in the Jew the gift of his genius 


1 Exodus xix, 16. 


2 Exodus xix, 5. 


3 Exodus xix, 5. 



256 


GREEK AND HEBREW CIVILIZATION CONTRASTED. 


and its particular visions, as not only royal, but priestly: not alone was lie to rule, but to 
minister; and he was to rule, not primarily by might of institution, or by grant of invaluable 
territory, but by the sovereignty of organizing ideas and the gift of their realm of power. So 
was their kingdom to be priestly — “ a kingdom of priests.” 1 

Every nation has failed of genuine kingship which has failed to exercise such priestly 
functions as these. In quite another manner, as characteristic of God’s providence, as truly 
emphasizing the gift of the genius of the Greek, did Jehovah call the Greek to a royal priest¬ 
hood. Hellenic kingship did not vanish at the approach of Roman strength; for the Greek 
had made it a true priesthood unto all men. His life’s inherent ideas were at once regulations, 
legislations, and ministrations to the life of the race. The Greek really separated himself from 
the barbarians, as truly as did the Hebrew from the Gentile world; not by a protest of words 
against barbarism, but by the force of his ideals. Discriminations founded on any other 
assumption than the possession of spiritual or intellectual treasures which they held in trust, 
always failed with both peoples. Ideas entering tasks as distinct as are the characters of nations 
alone preserve national individuality. God called the Greek to be an intellectual aristocracy, 
as he called the Hebrew to be a spiritual aristocracy, and both did he call to minister to all 
humanity. In each case, the unique and precious stream flowed between firm banks of patriotic 
conviction. The Greek was called to be an artistic nation — his Sinai revealed the law of 
beauty; God called the Hebrew, as we have seen, to be “ an holy nation ” — his Sinai revealed 
the laws of righteousness. Because holiness is the highest concern of all life, Jehovah has said, 
not alone in that hour but as well in all history, before and after Sinai: “ Ye shall be a peculiar 
treasure to me above all people.” 2 We never so truly appreciate the divine distinctions in the 
character and tasks of great peoples as at such places as this in the geography of the soul. 
“ The great truth known to Israel,” says Rothe, “ is that God — the great truth known to the 
Greeks is that man — is a moral, an ethical being; therefore, either cycle of historical develop¬ 
ment belongs essentially to the other, and that, too, because both form an essential preparation 
for Christianity.” “ What the new idea of God and the new notion of religion have done for 
man,” says Principal Fairbairn, “we may not attempt to tell. They have changed him within 
and without, strengthened all his moral qualities, created in him a nobler and sterner ethical 
spirit, exalted his ideal of manhood, brought elements into his social and collective life that 
have enormously enriched his civilization. Our order is not the Greek cosmos — the beautiful 
but merciless harmony that man could not but admire, that yet crushed without pity the man 
who touched it. Our order is the moral, the reign of the living and righteous will, which 
never spares guilt, but is ever merciful to the guilty. Our conception of the universe, of provi¬ 
dence, of the law that is supreme over man and his destiny, is penetrated through and through 
with moral ideas. . . . Jehovah called Israel out of Egypt to serve him, and Israel’s 

service of Jehovah has been in the noblest sense service of man.” Eloquently, indeed, does 
Gladstone also utter this truth : “ Palestine was weak and despised, always obscure, ofttimes and 
long trodden down beneath the feet of imperious masters. On the other hand, Greece, for a 
thousand years, repelled every invader from her shores. Fostering her strength in the keen air 
of freedom, she defied, and at length overthrew, the mightiest of existing empires; and when 
finally she felt the resistless grasp of the masters of all the world, them, too, at the very moment 
of her subjugation, she herself subdued to her literature, language, arts, and manners. Pales¬ 
tine, in a word, had no share of the glories of our race; while they blaze on every page of the 
history of Greece with an overpowering splendor. Greece had valor, policy, renown, genius, 
wisdom, wit — she had all, in a word, that this world could give her; hut the flowers of Para¬ 
dise, which blossom at the best but thinly, blossomed in Palestine alone.” 


1 Exodus xix, 6. 


2 Exodus xix, 5. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE GIVING OF THE LAW. 

MOW Israel trembled on the edge of a new era. “ And Mount Sinai was altogether on a 

smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire. And the smoke thereof ascended as 
the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly/’ 1 For many wondrous hours, in 
the awe-inspiring atmosphere of the promise and command of Jehovah, the whole congregation 
had listened to its own echoed pledge made by its leader. “All that Jehovah hath spoken will 
we do.” ~ Three days of solemn preparation had passed. Amidst all these hours of purifica¬ 
tion and sanctification, they had mused upon God’s goodness. “ I bare you on eagles’ wings,” 
said Jehovah, “and brought you unto myself.” 3 At length, having gone up to the top of the 
first elevation, Moses had asked Jehovah’s command. It was at once a covenant and a revela¬ 
tion — every newly discovered truth is a covenant between God and man, exacting the perform¬ 
ance of the higher duties which it discloses; and it is also a revelation of God’s conception 
of man’s capabilities as well as a revelation of God himself. The bounds had been sacredly 
observed, and not an Israelite sought to “ break through to touch the mount that burned with 
fire.” 4 Moses had already taken the pledge of Hebrewdom up to the mysterious height. 
To-day, “ in the sight of all the people,” 5 Jehovah will come down again. The “thick cloud” 6 
covered the mount. Thunders shook the crags and lightnings flamed and vanished above the 
awful place. Jehovah called his servant, and the eyes of Israel followed him up into the cloud. 
But lest any Israelite might transgress beyond the bound, he was sent down again. Moses and 
Aaron alone might come up into the presence chamber of Jehovah. Then over the mighty 
host, standing as one expectant man upon the plain, the voice of Jehovah sounded forth. Even 
Israel, exalted by sublime events, had not been trained to endure the grandeur of such a 
moment. At the utterance of the “ Ten Words,” the proclamation of Israel’s constitution, the 
publishing of that Jewish code each of whose words establishes a principle for the whole race, 
“ the people reeled backward and stood afar off.” “ And they said unto Moses: Speak thou 
with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto 
the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your 
faces, that ye sin not. And the people stood afar off. And Moses drew near unto the thick 
darkness where God was.” 7 

It is to be noticed that the penetrative soul of Moses was not hesitant in saying that all 
the sublime accompaniment to the issuing of this song-theme of civilization had not been given 
to inspire or foster fear in Israel’s heart. It had all come, that they might learn the supreme 
grandeur of holiness. The organific ordinances had been spoken in the “Ten Words.” Now 
that the foundations were laid and the constitutive principles enshrined in these commandments, 
the structure of civil law and judicial procedure might fitly rise upon them. As the people 
tremblingly had asked for the mediatorship of Moses, they made prophecy of that clearer 
demand which prophets and psalmists would discover in the human soul beseeching the 
mediatorship of the Christ of God. In this expressed desire for mediation, they were only going 
deeper still into the true conception of that almighty power whom they had called Jehovah. 
Indeed, the “ Ten Words ” were and are the complete utterance of that profound idea of God. 
They simply open up and restate that distinctive conception, as its behests and the hopes it 
enkindles reveal themselves in the life and conduct of man. They are the interpretation of the 

1 Exodus xix, 18. 2 Exodus xxiv, 3 (Revised Version). 3 Exodus xix, 4. 4 Exodus xix, 21. 

5 Exodus xix, 11. 6 Exodus xix, 16. 7 Exodus xx, 19-21. 


257 



258 


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. 


memorial name, just as the colors and tints of grasses and flowers are the loyal and logical 
explication of the sunlight, revealing itself in the life which it touches and influences. The 
memorial name is not only the soul and reason of the “Ten Words,” but it involves all that 
vast collection of ordinances, laws, codes, procedures, precedents, prohibitions, rules, and judicial 
statutes which their application to human life has furnished in the flight of more than thirty 
centuries. In their simplest form, they appear as follows: 

“ I am Jehovah, thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house 
of bondage.” 1 

TABLE I. 


Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. 

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. 

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 
Thou shalt remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 
Thou s'halt honor thy father and thy mother. 


TABLE II. 

Thou shalt do no murder. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery. 

Thou shalt not steal. 

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. 2 


Upon these, the whole system of worship and civil economy rose, and, naturally enough, these 
commands are inspirational to the civilizations inspired and guided by the most progressive and 
constructive forces, for they are fundamental; they appeal to the deeps of human possibility 
and to the heights of divine providence. They also created a new era. For, in these “Ten 
Words,” closest sympathy is revealed between religion — man’s attitude and action toward 
God, and morality — man’s attitude and action toward his fellow-man. 

It may be permitted here, briefly, to pause with these ideas and their new expression in the 
Jewish constitution. The prefatory declaration : “/ am Jehovah, thy God, who brought thee out 
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage ,” is itself a statement of the fact that stable 
and just social organization has its genesis and birth in God. Such a background of history is 
an abundant and, indeed, indispensable resource and inspiration. It constantly invests a people 
with the presence of divine ideals — greater than they alone have been, or are; and it bids them 
march under the inspiration of a theory of government which summons every possibility within 
them into harmony with Jehovah’s infinite plan. Thus this early declaration was the expression 
of that noblest Puritanism which has made the State one with the Church of God, in aim and 
achievement. Back of all human schemes or purposes, to give dignity and nobility to all their 
own ideals and movements, was the divine will, which, once at least, and in the nation’s very 
birth-hour, had proven itself the soul of victory. To this will all their policies and ambitions, 
if they be worthy, must make appeal. 

One by one, the five majestic commands of the first table unfold the true notion of 
Jehovah, and indicate the kind of worship due unto him. Monotheism had never so grandly 
uttered itself, as in that first command, Thou shalt have no other gods before me .” 3 Jehovah 
must be unique and alone in Israel’s life, or Israel’s life would vanish ; besides this, the fact 
abided: Only the Jehovah of their worship is the “ I AM THAT I AM,” 4 in the whole 
universe. The second word was a divine provision for the spirituality of religion ; and thus it 
was a plea for man’s higher self. It does both of these services by its attack upon idolatry. 
Egypt had concealed the Eternal One in a multitude of symbols. Images of the infinite had 


1 Exodus xx, 2. 


2 Exodus xx. 


3 Exodus xx, 3. 


* Exodus iii, 14. 




■ ■. 


v* 


MOSES PRESENTING THE TABLETS 





























































































































































































2C>0 


THE DIVINE PRECEPTS ANALYZED. 


not only failed to represent God; they had positively left the higher regions of man’s thought, 
and aspiration, and faith without a God worthy of worship. Sense had cheated spirit in creat¬ 
ing countless images. “ Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image” said J ehovah; and 
then only had the idea of God in the word an infinite future within the mind of man. 

With such a new vision of the real significance of the memorial name Jehovah, in human 
thought and life, how natural and, indeed, consequential, is the third of these “ Ten Words,” 
enforcing the duty of reverence for the all-sacred and all-supreme. u Thou shalt not lift up the 
name of the Lord thy God to a vanity.” This laid the foundation for the noble and ennobling 
awe, in the presence of the divine, which has uplifted humanity as nothing else ever has 
exalted, or may exalt, man’s mind from low and vulgar associations. It was not alone a 
command against the profanity of a curse with God’s sacred name; it was an effort of J ehovah 
to guard humanity against the desecration of that which is sacred anywhere and at any time. 
It makes man’s soul sacred to live with awe in the presence of that which is truly majestic and 
awe-inspiring. Maurice was not less a statesman than a theologian when he said : “I hold no 
commandment to be more permanent, or more necessary for my nation and for me, than this 
one.” Quite as logical was the next utterance and quite as consequential is its command: 
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” No more truly gracious does this word of God 
seem than when, ages later, we hear Jesus of Nazareth say: “ The sabbath was made for man, 
and not man for the sabbath.” For this word of Jehovah, concerning his sabbaths, was to 
provide a mainstay for a nation of slaves, in their effort to realize the ideal of Jehovah, amidst 
the countless needs, and cares, and discouragements of their life. One day was set amongst the 
rest, to make man surer of his divine pedigree, to thrill him with divine hopes, to bring him up 
again out of life’s commonplaces into sympathy with divine plans and make him able to look 
forward to his loftier self when the whole earth shall be the sabbath of the Lord God. “ Rest ” 
— that one word, spoken at that time, held infinite treasures for man; it has poured its 
fragrance of peace into all time. It was the bloom of this command. This law was not a 
whim of Jehovah; it sounded the deeps of human nature and builded on their foundations. 
As no true civilization then was possible without the sabbath, so to-day without it no apparently 
strong civilization is safe. The sabbath belongs to all time, so long as man endures. 

Naturally, out of all this reverence for what is essentially sacred, came the command for the 
revering of the foundation stones underlying family life; and the last duty unto God is thus 
mentioned: “ Honor thy father and thy mother.” There is no reverence for Jehovah, or for 
anything that sanctifies life and exalts man, where there is no reverence for parents. This is 
a duty to Jehovah; for they alone stand for Jehovah in the opening life of Jehovah’s human 
children. The family is the dearest and noblest organism in human civilization. It is the 
splendid distinction of Hebrewdom that, in Israel’s life and in this command, progressive man¬ 
kind escaped the baneful immorality of the old religions, learned the love of children, and made 
the household the source of a life so enduring and resilient as to leave this people unmatched in 
all human history. 

On the second table were inscribed, in a very brief and rudimentary manner, that series of 
obligations constituting a code which for all time has bound religion with morality, and has 
taught mankind that the duties toward God are never performed except along with the duties 
toward man. Jehovah is behind all life. There is no “ looking up” without “ lifting up.” The 
first of these obligations touches humanity at those crises in life when the relations of man and 
man produce friction, and the first impulse following opposition is to avenge a wrong done, or 
satisfy the demands of anger. “ Thou shalt not kill ”—this was the divine announcement of 
the fact that human life is always sacred. Protection for man’s existence here, to work out his 
destiny, to fulfill his right to be and to be free on this earth — reverence for such a rich and 
divine gift as human life — these are all enjoined by this commandment. 


THE SECOND TABLE OF THE LAW, 


261 


How naturally, with that divine idea of the place of the household and family to which 
reference has already been made, proceeded the next commandment: “ Thou shalt not com¬ 
mit adultery.” The home had its inviolable foundations made secure in this word of Jehovah. 
The future of human society could not have been guaranteed otherwise. All relationships of 
human beings, all the precious outflow of what is best and fairest in human life, all that is truest 
and sweetest in human memory or hope, were made sacred, guarded by a divine utterance, in 
his command. Out of pure households rises the loved golden age. 

Next to this must be established the sanctity of property. In an age like our own, we 
appreciate the statesmanship which uttered this commandment. Civil society, even after these 
other questions are settled by the commandments of Jehovah, has no future, except when this 
foundation is placed beneath property : “Thou shalt not steal.” 

But there is something besides a man’s possessions to be kept. Dear, indeed, to all human 
society is truth; and justice is the bulwark of civilized life. “Thou shalt not hear false witness ,” 
said Jehovah. Public righteousness is private reverence for truth and justice. A lie is the foe 
of social unity. Untruth in men makes the organism of civil economy untrue. Truth in 
every man as to every other man makes any man’s life and honor safe. 

At last, the law touched the very soul of all true life and social well-being. Selfishness 
had made and still was making Paradise a lost Eden. Only the noblest regard for others’ lives, 
others’ possessions, others’ rights, may be able to make society worthy of its hopes and exist¬ 
ence. “Thou shalt not covet,” said the Jehovah of Israel. Benevolence in every citizen is the 
atmosphere of a safe and stable social state; greed is its poison and death. Besides this, no soul 
may reach its rich and full power, with the evil demon of covetousness in the bosom; and it is 
the mission of society to bring out all there is of a man. From murder, the most brutal, to 
covetousness, the least rude — the law of Jehovah swept the scale. In the law’s attitude toward 
this last sin, it touched the heart of man’s moral life: Judaism had almost reached Christianity. 
It forbade even the feeling that would appropriate anything of any man’s goods. It struck at 
the very intents of the heart. It prophesied a human society which is stable and glorious, only 
because man’s heart is right. 

Thus did the significance of the new and memorial name unfold itself to the genius of 
Moses on the sacred mount. God was no longer a name, but a power for righteousness in man’s 
life. Jehovah was henceforth the living foe of iniquity, the reason of universal order, the 
pledge of ultimate and just civilization. His people’s business in the world, ever after that 
moment, as they moved against the dark background of contemporary religiosity and pompous 
superstition, was to “ make for righteousness.” Standing for this, Israel was the sublimest spec¬ 
tacle in all the world. Israel possessed the ideals for both the Church and the State. These 
inhered in the law which was to be 

“Sovereign law, that state’s collected will, 

******** 

Sits empress, crowning good, repressing ill. 

Smit by her sacred frown 

The fiend dissension like a vapor sinks, 

And e’en the all dazzling crown 

Hides his faint rays and at her bidding shrinks.” 


CHAPTER XI. 


ISRAEL’S SIN AND THE RENEWAL OF THE CODE. 


NGRAVED, as these “ Ten Words ” were to be, on tables of stone, this body of law was 



-U also to be kept in the sacred ark, while into the many-sided life of Israel their regnant 
influence should proceed through the subordinate laws, or ordinances, founded upon them. 
Elsewhere, in this work, these and the suggestive illustration they have are treated more at 
length. But we may be permitted, here, to say that these statutes, given by the hand of Moses, 
were really the terms of the covenant which Jehovah made. This covenant had its inaugura¬ 
tion in solemn sacrifice, the renewal to their minds of that passover night in Egypt, and the 
meal of sacrifice. Moses himself sprinkled the altar with half of the blood, read the laws and 
ordinances, and the people answered : “ All that Jehovah hath commanded will we do, and be 
obedient.” 1 Then the rest of the blood was sprinkled over the representatives of the tribes. 
Truly it was “ the blood of the covenant which God hath made ” 2 with them. 

Back to the sacred mount the great leader went with Aaron, his nephews Nadab and 
Abihu, and the seventy tribal representatives. The glory of God now revealed itself. Where 
a little time before was thick darkness, it now seemed “ a paved work of sapphire stone, and 
as it were the body of heaven in its clearness.” 3 “They saw God, and did eat and drink.” 4 
Sending Aaron and Hur back to the people, Moses took Joshua and approached the presence 
chamber of Jehovah. Then, alone, the lawgiver of Israel entered the cloud that covered the 
mount, and there he remained for forty days. Those forty days of absence put an intense strain 
upon Israel’s spirituality and faith. It is easy to see them looking at the altar at the foot of the 
mountain, remembering the covenant made with Jehovah, counting the twelve pillars, while 
now and then the o’erstrained eye searches the distant cloud for a glimpse of Moses. All that 
heathenism possessed of charm, or dignity, now swept in upon the trembling heart of Hebrew¬ 
dom. In the solitude and splendor of yonder cloud, Jehovah was giving to Moses and his 
people two tables of stone on which the law was written by the finger of God, and there Moses 
was beholding the pattern of the tabernacle. Here, below, thronged the memories and enchant¬ 
ments of Egyptian worship; and, having lost their mediator, the defenses of their souls were 
easily overcome; the visions of the old idolatry ruled; God must be made visible ; and so did 
circumstance and panic, loneliness and desire flow into one another that it seemed that a golden 
calf came of itself to their fancied need. Aaron shows how unconsciously he himself yielded to 
the pressure of the stream, when he answered Moses and said: “ They gave me gold. I cast it 
into the fire and there came out this calf.” 5 

He had at first resisted. In vain had Aaron thought Israel would halt at the point where 
their golden ornaments were to be melted. But Israel only cried out in a riot of joy, when the 
form of the Egyptian god came forth: “ These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up 
out of the land of Egypt.” 6 It was a fateful compromise, in which they were glad to worship 
Jehovah under the idolatrous Egyptian symbol. Even Aaron was willing to say of the feast 
which accompanied the event: “ To-morrow is a feast to Jehovah.” 7 

As Moses descended from the mount, though he held in his soul the pattern of the taber¬ 
nacle, its priesthood and services and the divinely graven decalogue, all seemed lost. He 
would not wait to consider that it had perhaps been asking too much that a throng of Hebrew 
slaves, who, until recently, had blindly worshiped Apis and Mnevis, should so soon become 


3 Exodus xxiv, 10. 


1 Exodus xxiv, 7. 

6 Exodus xxxii, 4. 


2 Exodus xxiv, S. 

7 Exodus xxxii, 5. 


262 


4 Exodus xxiv, 11. 


* Exodus xxxii, 24. 







ADORATION OF THE GOLDEN CALF 
































264 


THE PUNISHMENT OF IDOLATRY. 


a nation steadily enrapt with its vision of the Invisible. Truly, the leader had himself alone 
been close enough to the fiery cloud to keep its meanings clear. He looked with pitiful dismay 
and holy wrath upon the orgies which followed the feast presented to the calf. He had come 
down from the solitude of Jehovah, with a hint which Jehovah gave him of their peril, to 
behold this shameless din of idolatrous humanity. It was an awful distance spiritually — but it 
is traveled by every true lawgiver and reformer — from God’s presence, where the source ot law 
and the tabernacle of hope are, to the presence and condition of that disappointing humanity 
which they are to rule and to redeem. Even the mind of Moses was not comprehensive 
enough—only the mind of Jehovah as revealed in Christ has proved to be comprehensive 
enough — to hold in one faith and hope both the law and the lawless. Moses hurled from his 
arms the two tables of stone and broke them to pieces on the earth. It was an hour for right¬ 
eous indignation. He approached the detestable golden calf and “ burned it in the fire, and 
ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water and made the children of Israel drink of 
it.” 1 Always do we, in returning to our idols, repeat this ancient history. The circumstances 
seem to create the calf. Our religion becomes a low feast. We make our very lust devout and 
it utters pious phrases. Then the ashes of our idol are cast, as these were, into the brook that 
flows out of Sinai. We must get back to Sinai. The law we break is to be reckoned with. 
Law itself is full of grace. Each bears his sin’s consequences: we drink of the water of that 
brook where the ruined idols are thrown. 

But more than this must the stern lawgiver and emancipator, in that stern crisis, accom¬ 
plish. He called the faithful ones ; the sons of Levi responded with their naked swords. 
Justice is to be done. Here was a trial for the tender heart; but authority has gone. Govern¬ 
ment has perished. It must be restored and the rebellion crushed. That these were done, 
instantly, was testified in the three thousand dead men at the camp of Israel, and the ascent of 
Moses, pleading, as he made his way up Sinai again, for the pardon of Israel and Aaron. Only 
a great nation can slay its real foes and then forgive. Again, God had said — and this time he 
“ waxed hot against them ” : 3 “I will make of thee a great nation .” 3 He would bind them 
once more to the cost of a great idea. 

Israel was now in grief. Jehovah would not approach them, even for their own sakes ; 
the glory would have consumed them. Loud lamentations were uttered and habiliments of 
sorrowful penitence were worn ; and from Horeb even to Canaan, there were no ornaments 
upon them. Moses’ tent was now more remote from the camp. Still salvation was at “ the 
tent of meeting.” The cloud was no longer in their midst; it was graciously in sight. 

It is the story of a leader of which the soul is unworthy, an ideal in which for an hour the 
heart has lost its trust. Joshua was in charge of the leader’s tent. At last, the pardon was 
granted. The old covenant was again full of vital forces and gracious influences. Once more 
Moses was ready to lead on; and, as though Jehovah would start him anew, with something 
like the encouraging impulse given aforetime at the bush that burned and was not consumed, he 
was placed in a crevice of the mountain of God. More and more did his penetrative mind and 
full heart say: “ If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.” 4 He was where 
he had been when he saw that his personal victory over Pharaoh was not worth having. He 
knew that Pharaoh must acknowledge Jehovah ; it must be Jehovah's triumph ; and Moses must 
now be sure that Jehovah is the soul of the advance; he knows that otherwise it is not progress 
at all. “ I beseech thee, show me thy glory,” 5 prayed the leader. The divine answer came: 
“ I will make all my goodness pass before thee: and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah before 
thee .” 6 Hidden in the cleft of the rock, Moses saw the “back parts ” 7 of him, just as always 
the goodness that comes to us is the testimony that God is and is gone, to leave goodness 

1 Exodus xxxii, 20. 2 Exodus xxxii, 10. 3 Exodus xxxii, 10. 4 Exodus xxxiii, 15. 

5 Exodus xxxiii, 18. 6 Exodus xxxiii, 10. 7 Exodus xxxiii, 23. 




NADAB AND ABIHCJ. 


STRANGE FIRE. 















































































2GG 


INSUFFICIENCY OF THE DECALOGUE. 


elsewhere. God’s glory is his goodness — not his power, not his wisdom, not even his justice, 
not even his truth, related as these are in character; but his goodness is the deepest, truest 
reflection of Jehovah. Moses was leading to Christ, in whom “ God is love.” 1 

Just as, at the hour of the burning bush, El Shaddai, God. Almighty, became to a great 
soul in a crisis, Jehovah, “ I AM THAT I AM,” and as the evolution of the idea of God came 
nearer to that full conception and description of him contained in his son’s saying: “ Our 
Father which art in heaven,” 2 so here, at a new crisis in the faith of Moses and Israel, indeed, 
of mankind — a crisis quite as serious as the former — there came another forward impulse and 
movement toward the conception of Jesus Christ, for here the goodness of God was shown to be 
his real glory. It marks a stage in the race’s theology. The test of a theology — which is 
man’s view of the power that is supreme in the universe, the power with which, or with whom, 
he has to reckon — here and forever — is found in the morality, the conduct, which it inspires 
and establishes. Up to this later hour, the morality of Israel was not satisfactory even in such 
an essential point as worship; it had broken down amidst a glorious, though a trying series of 
events. For Israel had not yet answered to Israel’s own heart the question : “ O Jehovah, what 
is thy real glory ? ” Other nations before had made the power, or the wisdom, or the justice, 
or the truth of the Supreme One, to be its, or his, glory. No Sinai code could enforce itself in 
human nature, trained toward some better idea of their own life, as Israel had been, if human 
nature felt nothing better behind that law as authority, than power, or wisdom, or justice, or 
truth. Israel, through Israel’s loftiest and deepest soul, had felt the influence of goodness in 
Jehovah, tlie covenanting God. The law alone was impotent, for there was, as yet, not enough 
of the Christly element— goodness — shining through it, to command and win loyalty. “ All 
law,” says Burke, “ is benevolence acting by rule.” That is to say, as history proves, Sinai’s 
utterances are successful in producing morality by sympathetically attaching the governed to 
the energy behind the law. Thus this whole event is a Christian triumph, before Christianity 
was born. The law here, in its failure, is a tutor leading to Christ — goodness embodied — 
Jehovah incarnate. Moses had led the race’s theology and theodicy to a loftier discovery. 
Behind the law of Sinai was infinite power, wisdom, justice, truth, with what is dearer and 
greater, for it included them all— goodness. Henceforth, as Moses descended from Sinai again 
with the law, again written on two tables of stone, his face did shine, and the decalogue had 
fortunes in human nature which it had not possessed before. 

It does not belong to this part of this work to speak at length of the tabernacle, whose 
pattern Moses saw in the Mount of God. Its very building was such an atonement as bound 
Israel unto Jehovah. On the first day of the second year from the date of their departure 
it stood in the camp. The fiery cloud abided upon it; Jehovah was near. A special class 
of Hebrews was, of course, necessarily set apart, at once, for the performance of the duties 
consequent upon this new and important procedure. Moses had been the mediator; but his 
face had been covered, as he spake to Israel. Now steps were taken toward that day when the 
veil was to be “ done away in Christ.” 3 The glory of Jehovah had “ filled the tabernacle.” 4 
We may almost hear the triumphant saying of John: “ The tabernacle of God is with men.” 5 
The whole Book of Leviticus has been called the code of Hebrewdom; it certainly represents 
the most wise and profound statesmanship, along with the truest religious spirit. 

It was almost inevitable that even the priest should fail, at times, to illustrate this high 
spiritual economy. We soon find Nadab and Abiliu, Aaron’s sons, attempting to offer “ strange 
fire before Jehovah.” 6 Even these of the tribe of Levi had faltered. Seven days of ceremonial 
at their consecration had not averted this awful event. Swift was the flame of Jehovah upon 
them, and Nadab and Abiliu were no more. “ Can it be,” says Geikie, “ that the prohibition 


'I. John iv, 8. 

6 Leviticus x, 1. 


2 Matthew vi, 9. 


3 II. Corinthians iii, .14. 


4 Exodus xl, 34. 


5 Revelation xxi, 3. 



FIRST AND SECOND CENSUSES. 


267 


of the priesthood from tasting wine, or strong drink, before entering the tabernacle, which 
immediately follows the mention of the catastrophe, is a hint as to its cause ? ” 

Another sorrowful event occurred before they left Sinai. The throng had included those 
who were gathered in the camp of Pan. One of the women, Shelomith, had a son whose father 
was a man of Egypt. Grown up and a member of the camp, at this time, he blasphemed the 
Name, and cursed. It was a shocking profanity, and — as if forever to show us that we are not 
ourselves to profane Jehovah in creating ex post facto law without ascertaining his will, thus 
making our ideas only human law without a divine sanction — the people, in the absence of any 
ordinance on the subject, appealed to Jehovah through Moses. The answer came; the blas¬ 
phemer was taken out from the camp and stoned by the congregation. To profane the supreme 
power which is above all life 'is, even now, treason to any government: it ultimately makes 
authority impossible. And, as though this were to be recognized by Israelite and foreigner 
alike, it was proclaimed that this punishment would come to any blasphemer. 


CHAPTER XII. 


THE CENSUS-THE WILDERNESS OF PARAN.-TIIE SPIES. 


^RHE annual feast of the Passover had come, and it was duly celebrated. A census of those 
J- constituting the host of Israel was taken, and the number reached 603,550. This would 
certainly indicate a total population of at least two millions. Edersheim compares this census 
with that taken just before entering Canaan, as follows: 


Reuben . 
Simeon . 
Gad .... 
Judah... 
Issachar 
Zebulun . 
Ephraim 
Manasseh 
Benjamin 
Dan .... 
Asher... 
Naphtali 


First Census . 1 Second Census . 2 

46.500 (Prince Elizur, “My God the Rock”). 43,730 

59,300 (Prince Shelumial, “God My Salvation ”). 22,200 

45,650 (Prince Eliasaph, “ My God that Gathers”). 40,500 

74,600 (Prince Nahslion, “The Diviner”). 76,500 

54.400 (Prince Nethaneel, “God the Giver”). 64,300 

57.400 (Prince Eliab, “My God the Father”). 60,500 

40.500 (Prince Elishama, “ My God the Hearer”). 32,500 

32,200 (Prince Gamaliel, “My God the Rewarder ”). 52,700 

35.400 (Prince Abidan, “My Father is Judge”). 45,600 

62,700 (Prince Ahiezer, “My Brother is Help”). 64,400 

41.500 (Prince Pagiel, either “ My Fate is God ” or “ My Prayer-God ”).... 53,400 

53.400 (Prince Ahira, “My Brother is Friend”). 45,400 


603,550 601,730 

The firstborn, 22,273, were hallowed. The Levites were separately numbered, and became 
the heljiers of Aaron in the tabernacle service. One family, the Gershomites, took charge of 
the tabernacle; the Merarites attended to the tent and its belongings; the contents and sanc¬ 
tuary vessels were looked after by the Kohathites. Moses had found a true friend in Hobab. 
The princes of Israel had offered rich gifts. The branched candlestick had been lit; the 
Levites were set apart. The twentieth day of the second month had come. The cloud of 
God’s presence and the silver trumpets of Aaron were ready to give the command to march. 
The ark was on the shoulders of the sons of Kohatli. 

“Arise, O Jehovah, let thine enemies be scattered! 

Let them also that hate thee flee before thee.” 3 


1 Exodus xxx ; Numbers i. 


2 Numbers xxvi. 


3 Numbers x, 35. 























268 


ISRAEL FED WITH QUAILS. 


This song, sung ages later by Savonarola in his cell at Florence, and, later still, by Oliver 
Cromwell as he mounted the heights of Dunbar, poured its melody forth from the lips of Moses, 
and Israel was again on the march. 

So great was the deposit of ideas which Jehovah had granted to Hebrewdom, and so rich 
were the treasures which Israel was to put in current coin, for all the social, political, and relig¬ 
ious future of the race, that Jehovah counted upon thirty-eight years of their wandering, under 
his guidance, before Canaan should be theirs. So much does Jehovah depend upon the realiza¬ 
tion of ideas and aspirations to make “ a great nation ” 1 that, when any Canaan comes in sight, 
it is only a rich incident: the making of the nation is the essential thing. At most, a large 
and fair country is only an opportunity to be met and used by intellectual and moral power. 
Thirty-eight years have a short chronicle in comparison with that which recites the conception, 
birth, and culture of the power to meet that opportunity which Israel now but half possessed. 
They had become a nation ; they had hold of the theocracy. All these years could do was but 
to teach them what it meant to humanity, and still means. Only thus could they truly possess 
Canaan. 

They moved toward the wilderness of Paran. Three days, and the pillar halted. They 
were murmuring, not in ignorance, as aforetime, as at Marah and Sin : better things ought now 
to have come from them; and a conflagration broke out in one of the encampments. Again 
they cried unto Moses; again Moses cried unto Jehovah. The fire was quenched ; but from its 
embers was lit the hateful spirit of mutiny; and now they were to pay the penalty for such 
associations as they had permitted with the mixed multitude which had come along. These 
adventurers demanded flesh to eat. They pictured the garden they had left to the hungry 
Hebrews. It was contagious ; and the cry for flesh to eat came to the discouraged Moses. At 
length he said to Jehovah: “ I am not able to bear all this people alone. If thou deal thus 
with me, kill me.” 2 Such men as Moses, and only such large souls, cast such heavy shadows, 
and have to look through them, when the sun is at their backs. Moses’ mediatorship was not 
that of Christ. Its very breakdown, as its success, led to Christ. Necessities like these are the 
mother of governmental inventions. The senate of seventy, with Hur at the head, had been 
chosen by the people. It was a sublime step. Already the theocracy had shown itself to be 
the pledge of all thorough and safe democracy. But the people were crying for meat. The 
Edomites were on one side; the Amalekites were on the other; the Amorites were in front; 
behind was Sinai and — Egypt’s garden of plenty. They were on a chalky plain, waterless, 
save for a few springs, flinty, also, and alive with scorpions and serpents. Their previous 
history, quoted and explained by Moses, did not feed them. In their semicircle, sat the senate 
of seventy; and lo, the spirit of prophecy came upon them, and upon Eldad and Medad, who 
had been designated, but had not been chosen.. Even Joshua himself missed Jehovah’s mean¬ 
ing, for he came to Moses with a scheme to forbid them to prophesy. Then, as a jewel which 
was hardened by this dreadful experience but was worth all that it cost, came the magnanimous 
utterance of Moses, opposing all jealousy. “ Enviest thou for my sake? Would to God,” said 
he, “ that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon 
them.” 3 A really great man is never jealous. And now the bread question was settled. The 
quail came in flocks; and, so truly did lust become its own punishment, that Israelite and 
Egyptian gained a pestilence from their surfeit of food. The place was called Kibroth-Hattaa- 
vah—“ Graves of Greediness .” 4 Verily, it is a long way to any true Canaan. “He gave them 
their request, but he sent leanness into their soul.” 

Only our loved ones are able to hurt our hearts. Yet it is never far, for any Moses, from 
Kibroth-Hattaavah to Hazeroth — the name of Israel’s next station. Probably Moses had 
been married a second time; and, if so, his wife, an Egyptian, was no more satisfactory to his 


1 Genesis xii, 2. 


2 Numbers xi, 15. 


8 Numbers xi, 29. 


4 Numbers xi, 34, 35. 



M OS ES I ’IN DIG A TED. — THE SPIES DESPA TCUED. 


269 

sister Miriam than Zipporah, liis first wife, had been helpful to the leader of the Hebrews. 
Miriam began to talk against her brother, on his wife’s account, and soon Aaron joined his 
utterances to the abominable scandal. They had lost something of their interest in worthy 
themes, as persons always do when they begin to look out after the family matters of their 
friends and relatives. The prophetic gift had not made them humble; and a not unusual 
method was adopted to discredit the unique character of the person criticised. “ Hath not the 
Lord spoken, also, by us? ” 1 they said. Older than Moses, of the same family, his importance 
they could not bear. Their action stung the modest, chivalrous soul of the man who had 
always avoided preeminence. They were his foes. On the other hand, he had made them all 
they were. Moses was silent; but Jehovah spoke to them from the pillar of cloud: “Hear 
now my words: It there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto 
him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is 
faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not 
in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold ; wherefore then were ye not 
afraid to speak against my servant Moses ?” 2 But more than speech, when the cloud removed, 
Miriam was white with leprosy. Such a spirit, in anyone, is leprosy — loathsome, contagious; 
and, as here, Aaron, who shares it, is usually doomed, as was he, to declare Miriam leprous. 
The only thing to do, in such cases, is to follow this example, and put Miriam out of the camp. 
Then love and pity worked. The great-hearted Moses interceded, and, seven days after, Miriam 
came back restored. 

Then followed an event which marks a turning point in Hebrew history. They were in 
the Wilderness of Paran, Kadesh-Barnea. Every step of their advance has been followed by 
modern travelers. It was “the stronghold of the Amorites,” and a little north of it begins the 
Negeb, or the “ south country ” of Palestine, which reaches nearly to “ Beersheba, where the 
Promised Land really begins.” There is even yet every witness that it was then fertile and 
fruitful. Out of a rough and mountainous district they had come to this series of plateaus. 
Every eye strained Canaanward, as they came to the wady famous from Abraham’s day to ours, 
where they rallied the host. Moses had not yet become used to disappointment, even though he 
found its value through his year’s stay at Sinai; and he now anticipated projecting an invasion 
straight through to the goal. But before giving the order to advance to Canaan, he concluded 
with the people to send spies from Kadesh — a picked band of chiefs from the twelve tribes. 
They were duly instructed and clothed with all the dignity of the hour and purpose. Every 
item of information as to land and water, roads and peoples, was to be obtained. The embassy 
started. Avoiding the warriors of Canaan, making a detour by leaving Ain Gadis to the north, 
entering the mountain district, Caleb and Joshua led “ unto Beliob, as men come to Hamath.” 
Descending by Hebron, they reached the route to the Negeb; and lo, the vine-clad country was 
luscious with grapes. Forty days had elapsed, and they returned, laden with the enormous 
clusters of Eslicol. Before Israel’s joy uttered all its excitement, the commissioners, who had 
been sent forth solely because the Israelites were not courageous enough to make the invasion 
in Jehovah’s name, related to them a series of facts which showed Israel’s lack of true valor and 
faith. “Only the people is strong which occupieth the land, and the cities fortified, very great, 
and also descendants of the Anak have we seen there ” 4 — this was their hesitant message to 
timid Hebrews. Caleb and Joshua, faithful to the idea that Jehovah is all and in all, did their 
utmost to stay their panic; but, so great was the general despair, that “the congregation lifted 
up their voice and cried ” 5 the whole night long. It was the old pitiful unbelief that again put 
Canaan far away, though its edge might have been seen from yonder mountain tops. They 
moaned for the low securities and safeties of Egypt’s slavery. Their fear of death at the hands 


1 Numbers xii, 2. 
5 Numbers xiv, 1. 


2 Numbers xii, 6-S. 


“Numbers xiii, 22. 


4 Numbers xiii, 28 



270 


ISRAEL'S REBELLION PUNISHED. 


of Canaanites made tliem wish they had met death under Pharaoh — so strange is the introver¬ 
sion of doubt. They proposed to choose another general, that they might return. Moses and 
Aaron could only prostrate themselves, dumb before Jehovah, almost disheartened by the din of 
mutiny about them. When Caleb and Joshua ventured to speak words of faith in Jehovah and 
his power to lead them against all foes whatsoever, Israel demanded that they should be stoned. 
It was a rejection of the Almighty One which outraged Jehovah’s forbearance. He declared he 
would smite them with a pestilence; and, faithful still to his promise that “ a great nation ” 
should be made, he proposed to make it out of Moses—“ a minority of one with God.” Quality, 
not quantity, makes greatness rather than bigness. This roused the mediator, and brought out 
his real greatness. “ The glory of Jehovah appeared in the tent of meeting to all Israel .” 1 
Moses pleaded, and his argument before Jehovah — a prayer of eager faith, shot through 
and through with javelins of doubt — is an heroic appeal. It goes deep into the nature of 
Jehovah — the God of the covenant. It claims all the resources of goodness, which is Jeho¬ 
vah’s glory; and it claims them for disobedient Israel. The answer was: “ Jehovah will 
preserve the nation ” ; but not a man of age, save Caleb and Joshua, will be permitted to enter 
Canaan; and, according to the number of the days which the spies spent in searching, shall be 
the number of their years of wandering. The old stock must die off. A more valiant nation 
must grow up to enter Canaan. The other ten spies were smitten by the plague . 2 Jehovah’s 
judgments are not arbitrary; they coinhere with the nature of truth, and man, and God. 
Responsible and rebellious belief cannot enter any Canaan. The impossibilities rise out of 
the nature of the mind itself. Doubt is a death-laden plague to all souls that have already 
been at Sinai and heard the law. 

Now the pendulum swung from this utter faithlessness to audacious, unguided presump¬ 
tion. They leaped at the Amalekites and were sorely repulsed. Moses and the ark of the 
covenant of Jehovah had not gone with them, in this attack. First, they had forgotten Jehovah 
in the faithless weakness which feared such as were the Amalekites; now they had forgotten 
Jehovah in their self-willed assertion of power. The result was, Canaan was theirs yesterday; 
to-day it is thirty-eight years away. 

Of that thirty and eight years, we have but the slightest chronicle; but the events which 
have come to us from the hands of the historian are all determinative and character-making in 
the life of Israel and Moses. From Kadesh, “after many days,” they moved “by the way to 
the Red Sea .” 3 Across this great series of plains, broken with chains of hills and many wadies, 
the loftiest plain being about two thousand feet above the sea, the vast procession marched, 
slowly learning the nature and cost of freedom. Modern travelers have found how easily this 
wilderness could have sustained the multitude of Israel and their flocks and herds. Water 
is easily obtained, reservoirs were doubtless made in the torrent-beds, and Egypt had taught 
Hebrewdom the practice of irrigation. Doves flew thick through the summer air; and herds of 
camels, goats, sheep and asses fed along the uplands and valleys. Here they would not utterly 
perish, although they must wait long to learn that the freedom and self-government, which, 
with Jehovah, is not heroic enough to overcome the Anak-cliildren of passion and sordid 
ambition, and the Canaanite prejudices and hostilities which every truth encounters, as well as 
to enjoy the Eshcol clusters of blessing, is not worth having even as an unearned gift. 

Two rebellions — each of which deepened the character of the loyalists of Israel and 
helped to exemplify the real nature of just government — occurred in the wilderness. A 
man was caught gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Amidst our contemporary sabbath 
breaking, little knowing how surely the life of man grows unsacred with the decay of such 
institutions, and that, in consequence, much of the anarchy of the day may be its product, we 
are amazed at the instant and awful punishment which came upon the offender. The law was 


1 Numbers xiv, 10. 


2 Numbers xiv, 20-38. 


Deuteronomy i, 40. 



KORAM'S REBELLION AND ITS RESULTS. 


271 


inexorable. There it stood on the statute book of Israel. The sinner suffered the punishment 
of death. Perhaps soon, either by revolution in society, or by the evolution of a true social 
morality, we may see that such punishment is merciful, as compared with the slaughter of men 
and hope consequent upon our. forgetting man’s right to a day of rest and his duty to use it as 
God ordained. 


CHAPTER XIII. 

KORAH’S REBELLION.—MOSES’ SIN-DEATH OF MIRIAM AND AARON.-BALAAM. 

'THE government of Israel under Moses was to meet a fresh peril. Korah, a- Levite, was a 
J- full cousin of MoSes. It was almost natural that he should claim priestly rights and 
privileges. Other firstborn Israelites made like demands. Soon, two hundred and fifty like- 
minded men, chiefs from the tribes, joined him in conspiracy. Dothan and Abiram, and, for a 
while, On, who were of the tribe of Reuben, the first son of Jacob, added their power to the 
movement against Moses and Aaron. It was hateful envy uttering its criticism, when the con¬ 
spiracy spake to the leaders of Israel. They paraded their conservatism, and asked for the old 
ways. Moses was unshaken in his trust of Jehovah. Next day, according to his arranging, 
the contumacious rebels were made silent. Before the altar of Jehovah, Korah and his troop 
assembled, and taking their censers, made the attempt to prove before Jehovah their right to 
the priesthood. The censers were ready; Jehovah spoke to Moses and Aaron: “ Separate 
yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.” 1 The mag¬ 
nanimous Moses could only beg in intercession. Aaror joined in the prayer. The congregation 
was saved; but Dothan and Abiram were swallowed up as the earth opened beneath them; 
Korah, was destroyed; and the two hundred and fifty chiefs of Israel were consumed before 
Jehovah’s tabernacle. The entire camp had waited, in sympathy with the revolt. They cried 
out upon Moses and Aaron: “Ye have killed the people of Jehovah !” 2 Jehovah answered 
their disloyalty with a plague, and, as if to picture for us One who is even now our High Priest 
and Savior, Aaron himself, with a censer filled from the altar, ran “ into the midst of the con¬ 
gregation ” 3 “and put on incense, and made atonement for the people .” 4 Nearly fifteen 
thousand had perished, but the plague was stayed. 

Peace after storm! Up in the most holy place, in the ark of the covenant with Jehovah, 
were laid the rods of rulership. Each rod was an emblem of government, and tribal unity, 
and hope. Each bore the name of the prince of that people. Dawn had come after the 
day of death, and “ behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi had budded, and brought 
forth buds, and bloomed*blossoms, and yielded almonds .” 5 True priesthood is always full of 
unsuspected vitality; and history, like Israel, preserves Aaron’s budding rod in the ark of 
the covenant with the pot of manna. 

The weary-footed years came and went, as this pilgrim throng met the perpetually new 
demands of social life, compelling them to add to the statute book the laws accordant with the 
“ Ten Words.” They were thus giving fresh illustration of the vitality of those principles, as 
their life developed unforeseen crises in the commonweal. Thirty-seven years of wandering did 
nothing to create an antidote for old age, as Moses journeyed with them; and, in the assertion 
of Jehovah that a new generation must come to enter Canaan, with Caleb and Joshua, even the 
great emancipator’s hope was swept away. As yet, there seems to have been no realization of 
this. But his heart-fiber had been most cruelly worn by the people unresponsive to the call of 


1 Numbers xvi, 21. 


2 Numbers xvi, 41. 


3 Numbers xvi, 47. 


4 Numbers xvi, 47. 


5 Numbers xvii, 8. 




MOSES’ BOER OF WEAKNESS. 


272 

Jehovah. They had, at length, swung round through these thirty-seven years, and again they 
camped in the region of Kadesli. A new generation had come; the old was nearly gone. 
Only five remained to talk over the memories and hopes of that first footstep taken toward 
freedom — Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Caleb, and Joshua. Miriam’s voice had led their exultation 
and song for the last time. Now, with solemn pageant and general lamentation, the brothers 
joined the procession which bore her dust to the tomb. The cords which bound the aged law¬ 
giver to earth were breaking; and yet it was as though Jehovah had imposed upon him a new 
task, to lead this younger band to Canaan. Kadesh, years ago, as we have seen, had been the 
place of God’s judgment against Israel’s unbelief; just there Israel’s new faith must now begin 
its militant career. The belief with which we finally triumph has its birthplace where the 
unbelief by which we failed was smitten down. 

At such places, even a Moses is in peril. The people are again thirsty; springs had 
vanished, and the torrent-beds were dry. The old cry of disappointment, reproach and censure 
came to the strained and tired leader. What could be done? Was not the rock struck at 
Rephidim ? But Moses and Aaron are commanded this time to speak, not to strike — first the 
natural; afterward and now, the spiritual. The people seemed so rebellious that the temper of 
Moses was lost. “ He spake unadvisedly with his lips ” 1 to the stupid, faithless throng. In 
this, he showed his lack of faith in Jehovah; and more, he exemplified a strange doubt by 
declining to command the crag. He struck it, as aforetime, with his rod. The water came, 
but Moses had lost a more valuable treasure. He had struck it; and he had struck it twice. 
It was a defeat of Jehovah’s purpose in the heart of his servant Moses. Jehovah had a right 
to a faith, upon the part of Moses, that had grown to perfectly trust the Infinite, in method 
and result. Anger with men is, at root, infidelity with God. 

Canaan was far away from the noble leader: only so majestic a character could have made 
so vast and limitless a distance between himself and his goal. The consequence came; Moses 
and Aaron were excluded from entering Canaan. At length, the mediatorship of Moses has 
drawn toward its end, as all human mediatorship must. It is with the aid of such a single dark 
moment of his faltering faith that we behold the grandeur of his life. 

Again he proves his kingliness of soul and the fact that Jehovah uses the humanity which 
has once failed, as he asks the kings of Edom and Moab to allow Israel to pass through these 
dominions. It was the easiest and nearest way to the entrance of Palestine. Moses pleaded 
kinship with them and God’s providence to a suffering people, but in vain. He promised, also, 
to use only the great roadway. Esau’s children were stubborn to Jacob’s descendants, and they 
gathered their warriors. But while the commissioners of Israel tarried, Israel moved eastward 
through Wady Murrell to Moserah, or Mount Hor. Here the roads opened for them. But, 
before they advance farther, the breaking of a still more tender cord was to prepare Moses for 
his own departure. Here Aaron died. The picture is pathetic and sublime. Two old men 
ascend the height with a young man; they are Moses and Aaron with Eleazer. Afar below 
them is Hebrewdom ; beyond is the land of hope. Slowly and solemnly the great priest is 
unclothed; the sacred garments of his august office one by one are taken from Aaron, the man 
who is to die, and presented to Eleazer, his son and successor, who is to live. The splendid past 
is passing into the hands of the glorious present. At last his soul has gone to Jehovah’s 
presence. “ And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they mourned for Aaron 
thirty days, even all the house of Israel .” 2 

Meantime the messengers returned, and hostile Edom was upon them. The foe was so 
situated that Israel must retreat. A detour was made which took the Hebrew army far to the 
south, by Gudgodah and Jotbath. Here at a turn in the route, the Canaanitish “ king of 
Arad, which dwelt in the South, fought against Israel and took some of them prisoners.” 3 


1 Psalm cvi. 


2 Numbers xx, 29. 


3 Numbers xxi, 1. 




MOSES AND THE BRAZEN SERPENT. 




































274 


STRUGGLES AND TRIUMPHS. 


This dreadful fate rankled in the hearts of the Hebrews; and there the vow was made, to 
be kept in bloody history after many years, that the cities of Canaan should be utterly 
destroyed. 

They now moved along the head of the gulf of Akaba, north of Ezion-Gaber, toward 
Moab. It was in this region that, once again, the hosts of Hebrews knew the horrors of thirst. 
Again they failed to rely on Jehovah; and the bitter reproaches rose to heaven. It is a land 
where travelers of to-day encounter multitudes of red and fiery spotted serpents. At that hour 
these venomous creatures fell upon the helpless army, wounding them to death. Moses was here 
commanded to make a brazen serpent—perhaps more nearly copper-colored—and place it upon 
a pole; and Jehovah promised that whoever looked upon it should be healed. Christianity has 
found in this a richly suggestive prophecy of Christ — human as sin, healing quickly and per¬ 
fectly, the one freely-offered remedy for sin. Surely, the seed of the woman has bruised the 
serpent’s head, though the serpent has stung his heel. 

On toward the goal the throng advanced, probably along the very track which is still the 
path of commerce from the city associated with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus to the city 
associated with the prophet of Islam. Crossing Zered, a brook, they found pastures in Moab. 
Rejoicing in the luscious green along the banks of Arnon, they could see Engedi; and, as they 
advanced from well to well, they filled the ravines with echoes of their singing. As out of the 
triumphant feeling which swelled in Israel’s breast when the Red Sea was passed, there came 
their national anthem : so here, in Moab, where the wells were crystal fountains, some of the 
finest of the Hebrew lyrics were born. Commanded to leave Moab unharmed and the descend¬ 
ants of Lot unhurt, they besought Moab and the land of Ammon for a peaceful passage, but in 
vain. The Ammonites were in no condition for war. Sihon of the Amorites had just despoiled 
them of a large territory. They asked safe passage of him, also in vain. From their camp at 
Kedemoth they were compelled to go as hostiles. Sihon was defeated. Israel was supreme over 
a large area between the Arnon and Jabbok, and the height of Hesbon was theirs. Songs 
broke forth, to echo through the poetry of all time. Another invasion followed to the north. 
Og of Gilead and Bashan, the ruler over a rich pasture and woodland, fell before the men of 
Reuben, and Gad, and Manasseli, who had leagued themselves with Ammon. At last, the cap¬ 
ital, Edrei, fell: and even Kenath — yielding to the hornets (a common plague) and Israel — 
succumbed with sixty fallen cities, which, one by one, made it possible for the Hebrews to claim 
the whole of the land east of the Jordan. The camp was pitched near the junction of the 
Jordan with the Red Sea; and it appeared that a complete conquest was only a question of a 
short time. 

At this moment, terrorized Moab employed the weird and magic arts which only such a 
man as Balak, “ the Spoiler,” might summon. The darksome art and artifices were potent, at 
least in the fancy of the age. A hundred incantations and imprecations have drifted down 
to us from that credulous and fearful time. The last energy of Moses was to be employed 
against this fascinating superstition and the genius of one of its masters. Balak, king of 
Moab, sent for Balaam, the subtlest and most acute of soothsayers. He came from the old 
land of Abraham. He had abundance of orthodox phraseology, and a clear title to the 
realm of divination. God had not, even in Balaam’s section of humanity, left himself unwit¬ 
nessed. He had every quality and aspect, habit and method, of a real prophet of Jehovah. He 
was as much an enigma to Israel as he is to the scholar of to-day. He behaved entirely and 
heroically faithful to Jehovah, for only what Jehovah gave him to say, would he say. He 
seemed, even when he would, to be unable to charm or bewilder Israel by enchantments. His 
life and its outflow was a mixture, like his character, of paganism and true religion. He was 
ready for any sacrifice to Jehovah ; yet he actually sacrificed to idols and ate their feasts. He 
said piously enough to the messenger of Balak: “ Get you into your land: for the Lord refuseth 


BALAAM'S PROPHECY.—ORDINATION OF JOSHUA. 


275 


to give me leave to go with you; ” 1 and yet his evident desire to go bore fruit finally, for the 
heathen anger suggested the means of injuring the people of Jehovah. When he refused to 
join his forces to Balak’s scheme, the Midianitish sheiks came to the latter’s help. Israel was 
to be seduced by their obedient women. The abomination was awfully effective. It was a 
frightfully dark moment for Moses; for nameless iniquity through impure and shameful rites 
threatened again to place Canaan farther away. The ugly evil imperilled Israel’s hope; time 
was short for the old statesman ; it was the hour for the surgeon’s knife, and Moses commanded 
the hanging of their heads before the sun. A dreadful plague came also and left twenty-four 
thousand Hebrew corpses. It was stayed only by Phinelias, the high priest, grandson of Aaron, 
who slew two of the sinners in their riot of evil. Midian also was humbled, all her male popu¬ 
lation being made a sacrifice. Kings and princes fell; and the most significant death of all was 
that of Balaam the soothsayer. Unable any longer to remain both pagan and believer, magician 
and servant of Jehovah, he perished with the royal house of Midian. Clear-headed and coura¬ 
geous indeed were the sagacity and statesmanship of the man who dealt thus with such a man 
and such a crisis. Yet Balaam must be called a prophet, if ever the foregleams that describe 
future events of supreme meaning may be said to indicate the prophetic power. As he falls, his 
lips tremble with the foreseen fate of Israel made captive by Assyria; and we of this nineteenth 
century of Christianity find him increasingly eloquent, as time moves on, saying: “ There shall 
come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of 
Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth .” 3 Any less comprehensive and self-poised soul 
than was Moses would have been amazed into powerlessness or dazzled into unfaithfulness ; but 
the situation and the foe were grasped hy the hand of trained power. 


CHAPTER XIV. 

A GREAT CAREER CLOSING.-THE CHARACTER OF MOSES. 

T HE Hebrew chieftain had met his last distinguished foe. These last years had deepened 
and exalted him; and nothing in all their flight did more to make him receptive of 
Jehovah’s call to final judgment than that event, so dark and yet so flooded with light, which 
had prevented his entering Canaan, before entering heaven. Moses sinned, yet Moses was a 
man of genuine sainthood. Not until the experience of victory over sin and a triumph over 
the consequences of some special sin, like that of the Hebrew leader at the Rock of Kadesh, 
have come to a soul, has that soul met and found the real meaning of human life. Such men 
as Moses are of those who at last walk upon “ the sea of glass mingled with fire.” 3 Principle 
is so permeated with passion, passion is so clarified and crystallized by principle, that such a 
character is at once the most perilous and the most safe of God’s creations. 

The last intimation given to Moses by God that the prophet would not be permitted to 
enter Canaan, on account of this sin, was met by that loyalty which besought God to appoint 
his successor. Joshua was set apart, by Moses laying on his hands. He was to be the captain 
of Israel, but directed in all his larger activity by Urim and Thummim. This direction of the 
younger general made Moses all the more lonely and sublime. He had been on such terms 
with Jehovah as to speak with him face to face. His work, however, was done. Pathetic 
indeed is the entreaty of Moses to “ see the good land .” 4 Like many others — the greatest of 

i Numbers xxii, 13. 2 Numbers xxiv, 17. ' Revelation xv, 2. J Deuteronomy i, 35. 

20 




27(3 


THE DEATH AND TOMB OF MOSES. 


the sons of men — the inspirers of progress, the workers in invention, the heralds of discov¬ 
eries, the searchers for truth, the foes of evil, the lovers of righteousness — he could not have 
Canaan; but Pisgah — beneath whose height the landscapes stretched from memory to hope, 
from history to prophecy — Pisgah was his. From the summit, looking westward, he saw far 
away the regions about the sacred city ; yonder was Bethlehem, to be known as the birthplace 
of Jesus ; and, resting his eye on a nearer spot, he beheld the heights of Hebron. Yonder, on 
the south, rose Mount Hor, and from the adjacent valley came voiceful memories. Toward the 
east, there unfolded a boundless meadow and harvest field. On the north were the plains and 
mountains, Esdraelon, Gerizim, Tabor, Gilboa, to be remembered, or to be hallowed, by the 
prophets, singers, kings, and saints of Israel; and everywhere, from the far-off mists hanging 
over Arabia to the summits of Benjamin, and from the purple line of Bozrah to the frown¬ 
ing bastions of Mount Seir, there was for the eye of the old warrior-statesman, who now sat on 
Pisgah, a vision of the land which must have suggested to him the future opportunities of the 
race, as Israel might lead and inspire it. His ascent had been slow. The people below had 
followed him, every eye straining to behold him through the tears of an orphaned nation. 
They had already been echoing in their hearts the wondrous song which the leader of Israel 
had uttered — a song which makes prophecy out of history, completing its harmony with such 
melodies of nature and life as one hundred and twenty years of life had given to the singer. 
They felt the air trembling still with the farewell address of the father of his country — an 
address unequaled by any Washington, filled with that comprehensive statesmanship and holy 
hope which made Charlemagnes, Alfreds, and Washingtons possible. But now he vanished 
from Pisgah. He had died “ at the mouth of Jehovah,” or, as Hebrew story has said, “ by the 
kiss of the Lord.” “ And no man knoweth the place of his burial unto this day.” 1 

At the edge of that unknown grave, the man of ideas, devoted to their championship, and 
fearless in their supremacy, stands at this day to count over the names of earth’s true idealists, 
and to find Moses’ stature growing more sublime, as glittering errors fade, outgrown institutions 
crumble, prejudices retreat, and truth finds her throne. Hither come and camp on heroic 
ground the soldiers of earth, and, losing nothing of admiration for the resolute sagacity of 
Alexander, the sober accuracy joined with intuitive power of calculation in Caesar, the calm 
contempt for foes which rose from the religious faith of Oliver Cromwell, the constant energy 
and unfailing readiness of Frederick the Great, the splendid audacity which throbbed from the 
unequaled egotism of Bonaparte, they agree that a man who, at the Red Sea, at Marah, and 
Horeb, having gathered a formless and untrained mass of men, to whose hands hundreds of 
thousands of women and children were clinging, and having transformed them into a sword to 
crush Egyptian despotism, created a path over deserts and mountain ranges, through the 
Amalekites, Edomites and Canaanites, unto the goal of his hopes, must have possessed the 
highest qualities of a great captain. To that unmarked sepulcher, journey the souls whose 
fiber has been made for freedom, and whose instinct is liberty ; and, surveying the relics of 
empires whose law was only an arbitrary commandment, studying the chaos that hurtles on to 
ruin with the anarchy which eulogizes license, they consider that figure at Sinai the noblest in 
the history of jurisprudence and civil liberty, that mountain the tallest of earth’s heights 
spiritually, until there were revealed the figure of One whose love is law, and that mountain, 
named Calvary, where equal rights and an ideal of perfect freedom began to write the state 
papers of Christendom. Our common manhood rears in that valley, where God buried Moses, 
its memorial, more enduring than brass, more white than marble, more rich than gold. He had 
sublime self-restraint with mighty passions. He was jealous for God, and he rebuked jealousy 
for himself. He was modest without losing his self-respect, humble without fearing the face 
of armies, or of men. He was kingly in the hours when most men are commonplace, and 


Deuteronomy xxxiv, 6. 




MOSES DEFENDING TEE WOMEN 


































278 


ANALYSIS OF MOSES’ CHARACTER. 


sympathetic with weakness when most men are irresponsive and unapproachable. His dignity 
was the result of that self-command which is the result of being commanded by the Almighty 
alone. His intellect lay so close to his conscience that his insight into moral problems was 
unerring, and its judgment was the voice of Jehovah. His will was so enfolded with a will 
diviner than his own, that it made its appeal to the Infinite Resource and rested on Omnipo¬ 
tence. With majestic tread, he entered on the path to spiritual discoveries; and the weight of 
his character and the importance of the need of constantly greater supplies from God, as he 
advanced, were answered by such unfoldings of the divine nature and such gifts of hitherto 
unrevealed truth, as furnished inspirations and sanctions to the laws which have guided 
humanity for three thousand years. His personal disinterestedness was that which proceeds 
from a life fixed upon the interests of mankind and Jehovah. His patience was no unthinking, 
nerveless consent to the slow progress of dumb and blind events: it was the peace of power 
counting on a force which made every event the manifestation of God and all Hebrew history 
his revelation. In him were blended the poetical and the practical; indeed, in his life, so did 
the poetical and practical relate themselves in duty, that the dreamer was always lifting the 
doer to his vision and the doer was always receiving the dreamer’s vision into his work. 

“ And now beneath the sky the watchers all, 

Angels that keep the homes of Israel, 

Or on high purpose wander o’er the world 
Leading the gentiles, felt a dark eclipse : 

The greatest ruler among men was gone. 

And from the westward sea was heard a wail, 

A dirge as from the isles of Javanim, 

Crying, ‘ Who now is left upon the earth 

Like him to teach the right and smite the wrong ? ! 

And from the East, far o’er the Syrian waste, 

Came slower, sadlier, the answering dirge : 

‘ No prophet like him lives or shall arise 
In Israel or the world forevermore. ’ 

“ But Israel waited, looking toward the mount, 

Till with the deepening eve the elders came 
Saying, ‘ His burial is hid with God. 

We stood far off and saw the angels lift 
His corpse aloft until they seemed a star 
That burnt itself away within the sky.’ 

“ The people answered with mute orphaned gaze, 

Looking for what had vanished evermore. 

Then through the gloom without them and within 
The spirit’s shaping light, mysterious speech, 

Invisible Will wrought clear in sculptured sound, 

The thought-begotten daughter of the voice, 

Thrilled on their listening sense : ‘ He has no tomb, 

He dwells not with you dead, but lives as Law.’” 



BOOK V. 


FROM THE PATRIARCHAL TENT TO THE PRIESTLY TABERNACLE. 


Rev. George F. Pentecost, D. D. 


Pastor of Marylebone Presbyterian Church, 


LONDON, ENGLAND. 












KOOK V. 


FROM THE PATRIARCHAL TENT TO THE PRIESTLY TABERNACLE. 


CHAPTER I. 

PRIMITIVE RELIGIONS. 

SPHERE is a disposition in certain quarters, among a special class of so-called scientists and 

culturists, to ignore religion as being at best a superstition, and unworthy of serious consid¬ 
eration. This cavalier method of disposing of religion is one which really scientific and serious 
minds cannot accept. Religion will not down at the bidding of those who, like the fool, say in 
their hearts “ there is no God.” 1 It is true that religion cannot be weighed in a balance or 
measured by a foot rule. It cannot be discovered by the telescope, discerned with the micro¬ 
scope, analyzed in a retort, nor resolved by the use of solutions. But it does not follow, 
therefore, that because religion is not a matter for the investigation of material science, it does 
not exist as part and parcel of human history — the religious instinct being inseparable from 
the constitution of man. 

We might just as well ignore man’s consciousness as man’s religion, for wherever there 
is consciousness there is found religion. We might as well ignore civilization as religion, for 
wherever there is a history of civilization open to our study and investigation, there we find 
religion. Nor is religion confined to the civilized races of mankind, for it is present as really 
among barbarous as among cultured peoples; but as the modern culturists deal more exclu¬ 
sively with the civilized nations of the past, we confine our remarks to that section of the 
human family in this inquiry. 

The more deeply we look into this matter, with the abundant materials furnished for our 
study by the archaeologist and the philologist, the more we discover that religion and civiliza¬ 
tion march together. This also we find to be true, that religion is not so much the outgrowth 
of civilization as that civilization and all mental culture are the outgrowth of religion. In fact, 
religion has been, as it still is, the great inspiration and formative motive underlying all civili¬ 
zation. Moreover, we find upon closer study that racial characteristics do not account for the 
differences in the underlying ideas of the various religious cults of the world. On the other 
hand, religious ideas most likely account for the characteristic differences in races and civiliza¬ 
tions. Any examination, therefore, into the worships of primitive times, especially into the 
worship characterizing those who were from the earliest days the followers of the true God, 
ought to be preceded by some inquiry into the nature of the cults that differentiated the 
apostate races from the chosen people of God. Attention is, therefore, invited to the question 
of religion as it existed and was developed in the families of the three sons of Noah, who 
practically divided the world between them, after the dispersion following the confusion of 
tongues at Babel . 2 It is fairly admitted by all scholars that the tenth chapter of Genesis gives 
us the best clue to the origin of the three great divisions of the human family among whom 


1 Psalm xiv, 1. 


2 Genesis ix, 19, x, 32, xi, 8, 9. 


281 





282 


SPREAD OF THE DESCENDANTS OF NOAH. 


religion has been most perfectly developed. The families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth were 
the progenitors of the races with which we have most to do, and whose monuments and 
histories are coming more and more under our easy inspection. It is true that Genesis does 
not give us any account of the Chinese, Negroes, or the North and South American Indians. 
But we are not to suppose that that wonderful chapter was intended to give us a complete scien¬ 
tific account of the whole human family for the purpose of a purely scientific, ethnological, and 
genealogical study; but that the intention was to treat only of those families in which the main 
current of history is found, and for the purpose of comparison with reference to the development 
of the religion of the true God. It does teach us, however, that the whole human race was of 
one blood and one speech . 1 No doubt the Mongolian, the Negro, the American Indian, and 
some other peoples were the collateral offspring of the sons of Noah. But as the chosen people 
of God did not come in contact with them in the course of their religious development, they are 
left out of the tables as having no immediate relevancy to the matter in hand; just as the people 
of the land of Nod 2 are not genealogically traced in the records preserved to us, though it is 
intimated that they, also, were descendants of Adam who had wandered away to the east of 
Eden. In the final outworking of the purpose of God, however, these most distant and far-lost 
tribes of men are included in the covenant promise given to Abraham . 3 Indeed, now that the 
western sons of Japheth — the Indo-Germanic peoples — have largely returned to the tents of 
Shem , 4 they are becoming the great instruments in the hands of God for carrying the covenant 
promise of salvation back to the original and main stock of that family — the Indo-Hindus — 
as also to those far-dispersed families , 5 the Mongolians, the Negroes, the American Indians, and 
other scattered races, who are also being gathered in by the same agencies. 

Instead of dividing the human race, for the purpose of this study, into two main streams 
as we are in the habit of doing with respect to the true people of God and the heathen nations, 
we should hear in mind rather that the race parted into three main streams—the Shemites, the 
Hamites, and the Japhethites. We, therefore, find three distinct types of religious development 
set forth to us, not only in the Bible account, hut in that furnished hy the historical monuments 
and ancient libraries now being so wonderfully opened up by the indomitable patience and 
labor of the archaeologist and philologist. 

In tracing these three families we discover geographical, linguistic, civilizing, moral, and 
religious tendencies which characterize them severally. It will be of interest and profit to take 
up each of these branches in turn and note some of their chief characteristics, especially as to 
their religious and moral developments. It is only by so doing that we can arrive at a clear 
idea of what is involved in the worship which characterized the people of God in the most 
primitive times, and thus fairly contrast it with the false religions with which they were sur¬ 
rounded and had to contend. In this way we shall perceive, in some measure, how the same 
conflict between the true and false in religion, morals, and civilization is still present and 
progressing in our own day and generation. It requires but little investigation to follow the 
descendants of Ham into the southern belt of country where they developed their religion and 
civilization, namely, chiefly in Egypt, on the plains about Babylon and Nineveh, in Canaan, 
and on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean among the Phoenicians. The descendants 
of Japheth went northward and thence spread away toward the west over Eastern Europe, 
downward toward and past the Black Sea, over the Isles of Greece, and thence to Italy and 
northward over Germany, France, and the British Isles, even as far north as Sweden and 
Norway. In other words, the sons of Japheth constitute the great Indo-Germanic races of the 
North. The Shemites occupied a middle ground, and were for the most part confined to the 
peninsula of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and northward until they reached the borders of Japheth. 


1 Genesis iii, 20, ix, 19, xi, 1; compare with Acts xvii, 26, 27. 
4 Genesis ix, 27. 6 In Genesis unnamed. 


2 Genesis iv, 16. 


3 Genesis xii, 2, 3. 




HILL OP THE CANAANITES. 



























284 


EGYPTIAN MYTHOLOGY. 


It will be seen from this that for practical purposes we might draw three belts of color across 
the map of Central and Western Asia, Northern Africa and Europe, and locate the descendants 
of these three sons of Noah respectively in the Northern, Middle, and Southern zones . 1 

Thus, the family of Ham were the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and 
Phoenicians; the family of Japheth, as we have seen, were the Indo-Germanic people, or the 
old and Western Aryans; the family of Shem, the Arabs proper, and later that remarkable 
people called out from them into separation unto Jehovah, the family of Abraham — the 
Hebrews, or Israelites. 

The Hamites were the most advanced in civilization, the most aggressive and dominating 
of the three families. The Japhethites were the most numerous, migratory, and intellectually 
versatile. The Shemites were fewest in numbers, the most conservative, stationary and least 
progressive, being, in fact, almost surrounded and inclosed by their more powerful neighbors, 
particularly by the descendants of Ham, by whom, indeed, they were dominated in everything 
except religious ideas, and in this respect they only escaped extinction. 

We shall take a very brief glance at the religious characteristics of these three families, 
and note some of their other peculiarities. 


CHAPTER II. 

THE THREE RELIGIONS. 

A S has already been intimated, the chief settlement and seat of the Hamite family and power 
- was in Egypt, whence they evidently recrossed the eastern peninsula of Arabia very early 
in their history. The vast material remains of that great civilization, especially the more 
recent discoveries, together with the writings of the ancients so lately brought to light, enable 
us to get a very fair and clear idea of the Hamite religion, which is easily identified with the 
other branches of the family, namely, the Assyrian, the Phoenician, and the Canaanite. It is 
to Egypt, however, that we first go to study their peculiarities. We cannot, of course, in this 
limited survey go very deeply into detail, but can only sketch an outline of these important 
matters, so as to enable us to get clearly before us the difference between their religion and that 
of the chosen people. 

That the Egyptians were originally monotheists seems pretty evident. Among other 
reasons for this conclusion I mention the fact of their god Ammon (which is said etymologically 
to mean the “ concealed god ”) being their chief deity. The idea of Ammon was that of a 
recondite, incomprehensible divinity, remote from man, hidden, mysterious, “ the proper object 
of profoundest reverence.” Ammon was undoubtedly just the fading shadow of the true God, 
the tradition of whom was dying out among those apostate people. They could not comprehend 
him, neither could they dismiss him from their minds. They, therefore, built no temple for 
him, but associated him with their god Ra (or the Sun-god) calling him Ammon-Ra. From 
this god Ra (or the sun) the Egyptians developed their polytheistic system, with all its ramifica¬ 
tion of doctrine and cult. It is not our purpose to follow them through this labyrinth of gods, 
but simply to trace the principal doctrine of their religion, which is essentially a materialistic 
nature-worship. All the deities of the Egyptians were simply different manifestations of the 
great god Ra — that is, each, in his or her place, stood for some principle or attribute of 
material nature. As, for instance, Osiris represented the light of the lower world or the sun 


1 See chapter ii. 




OSIRIS AND ISIS. 


285 


from the time of its sinking in the west until its rising again. The Egyptians conceived that 
from Ha all visible and invisible powers of nature proceeded or were developed. The essential 
idea in their doctrine of creation, and hence in all the development of their religious ideas, was 
based on the generative and conceptive principles of nature. For our purpose we may set aside 
all the other gods, save only Osiris and Isis, who, under one name or another, were the chief 
objects of worship among these Hamites. These two reappear among the Babylonians, Phoeni¬ 
cians, and Canaanites, as Bel or Baal, and Ashtoreth or Astarte, standing for the male and 
female principles in nature, from which all things have been produced. The great prominence 
given to this doctrine accounts for all the abominations connected with the worship of these 
gods and against which the prophets of the Lord so bitterly inveighed. It was the introduction 
of this licentious and degrading worship among the children of Israel, chiefly by Jezebel the 
wife of Ahab and the daughter of the high priest of the Zidonian Bel, which brought on the 
fearful conflict between Elijah and Ahab, and led to the overthrow, captivity, and final disper¬ 
sion among the nations of the ten tribes, to be gathered no more. At a later period the Greeks 
borrowed these gods and accepted their doctrines, though at the first their worship was neither 
gross nor sensual. The worship of the generative and conceptive principle in nature the Indo- 
Hindus also borrowed from the Hamites. This cult was that which led to the grossest corrup¬ 
tions found in all the false religions, leading ultimately to the downfall of their national life and 
the destruction of their civilization. It was especially this Isis worship which finally corrupted 
and brought to the dust the splendid civilization and once beautiful and poetic religion of 
the Greeks. It is this same sensual worship which has degraded the otherwise comparatively 
pure religion of the ancient Aryans who settled in India. The trailing mark of this loathsome 
pair, Osiris and Isis — Baal and Astarte — is now over all the land of India, has invaded every 
temple and household, and utterly corrupted and debased the entire Hindu cult. 

But, leaving this disgusting feature of the religion of the Hamites, let us turn to another 
phase of the Egyptian conception of God. Both Osiris and Isis were the children of Ha; and 
ultimately Isis became the wife, as well as the sister, of Osiris. No wonder religion falls when 
such a relation is true of the gods. It was early conceived that all life proceeded from the sun;, 
therefore he was deified. It was also observed that all products came from the soil; therefore the 
soil was deified. Now, the sun is Osiris, and the soil is Isis, though as the consort of Osiris she 
is the moon. Osiris is incarnated in the river Nile, which, as the father of all the productiveness 
of Egypt, of course, was a chief object of worship among the people. Isis or the moon was 
incarnated in the fertile soil of Egypt and hence was worshiped as the mother of good things. 
The Nile overflowing the soil of Egypt became the generative principle, and the earth or soil 
the conceptive principle, from which conjointly all the fruits of the earth sprang forth to sustain 
and bless the life of man. This principle was carried into everything that had life. Later on 
the chief god Ra became incarnate in certain animals, especially in the bull — Apis — and then 
in all living creatures: and so they all became objects of worship. Indeed, all nature, whether 
animate or inanimate, finally became but an incarnation of god, and the ultimate philosophical 
cult of the Egyptians was that of gross materialistic pantheism — the father and mother of our 
present day agnosticism and atheistic materialism. Gradually, from worshiping life in animals 
(for which the bull and cow stood forth as chief representatives), it became apparent that 
human life was a higher manifestation of god than a mere animal life. But as it was not 
possible to descend by a leap to self-worship, and not consistent with the dignity of the higher 
classes to pay worship to the hordes of poor downtrodden slaves, nor to their captives in war, 
the worship of the Egyptians was gradually restricted to the ruling classes, and finally centered 
in the supreme ruler or the Pharaoh who became, later, to all intents and purposes the only god 
the Egyptians had. The same was true in the great Mesopotamian kingdoms, and afterward 
became true among the Romans, who gradually adopted the religion of Egypt. The worship of 


286 


RESULTS OF POLYTHEISM. 


the Caesars was the last downward step in the apostasy of classic Rome, and immediately 
preceded its utter downfall. In this king-worship we find the culmination of human apostasy 
from the true God. It was this tendency to “ king-worship ” which was the ground upon 
which God forbade the children of Israel to have a king, like the nations around them. So, 
when they insisted on haying a king as had Babylon and Egypt, “ God first gave them a king 
in his anger and then took him away in his wrath.” 1 We can thus understand the meaning of 
God’s word to Samuel on the occasion of the demand of Israel for a king: “ And the Lord said 
unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they 
have not rejected thee [their judge and captain], but they have rejected me [their God and only 
king], that I should not reign over them .” 2 What untold misery lias come upon the human 
race from this Hamite principle of caste and the deification of mere earthly rulers; and yet 
even in Christian lands this worship of kings and higli-caste men, though gradually dying 
out, continues with us until this day! 

The Egyptians believed that god was the author of evil as well as of good, on the same 
principle that the sun in his rising made the light, and -in his setting brought on the darkness. 
They, therefore, worshiped the rising and the setting sun under different names. And as all 
things were generated from god, why, then, evil as well as good was a part of god’s creation 
and a part of himself. Hence, a great multitude of evil deities, but all representing god. 
Again, they sought to account for the chief tragedy of human existence — death. They early 
observed that the sun, which caused all life to spring out of the earth, also passed over it in the 
dry season and burnt all vegetation to death. The glorious Nile, the incarnation of the father 
of gods and of nature, the life-giving god, gradually lost itself in the sea. The Nile died away 
into the Mediterranean. The fruits died off the earth. Man died, and was no more. There¬ 
fore, there must be a god to represent this phase of nature, and that god was Typhon. The 
corresponding god among the Mesopotamian kingdoms was Adar Malik, or “ King Adar,” or, 
again, as in the Scriptures, “Adrammelech .” 3 Among the Canaanites this awful god is known 
and familiar to us under the name Moloch, a variation of Malik . 4 The dreadful and abominable 
rite which chiefly characterized the worship of this god was the offering up of little children 
to him by casting them alive into the fiery furnace which burned in the midst of the hideous 
idol. This god also appears in the Tarsus Hercules, in the Indian “ Siva, the destroyer,” and 
in the popular Indian goddess, Kali. But in connection with death in nature there was 
observed the perpetual coming to life again, as in the fertile soil the field which burned to 
death by the sun in the dry season, revived again by the overflowing of the Nile. The Nile 
that ran out and lost itself in the Mediterranean came to life again by the rising of the vapors 
from the sea, which, returning in rain and snow, fed the sources of the Nile and in turn 
brought again its life-giving waters to the thirsty land. The fabled Phoenix, which burned 
itself to death and then revived again out of its own ashes, is a symbol of this principle of 
death and life in the gods. Strange that the gods of a people should be forever dying and 
coming to life again! 

These, then, are the chief points of the religious cult of the Hamite family. Resolved into 
more simple language, we should say that it was the worship of material nature. A gross and 
grotesque pantheism in connection with a monistic polytheism — that is, the worship of one god 
under many forms and images, each one of the various gods having all the attributes of the 
others, the sum of all being the essence of the one god whom they could not abstractly grasp 
and who was too remote and dreamy for them to approach. 

The Japhethites, as already noted, are the great Indo-Germanic people, of whom we are 
the descendants. This family went originally to the far north. We have comparatively few 

1 Hosea xiii, 11. 2 1. Samuel viii, 7. 3 II. Kings xvii, 31. 4 Leviticus xviii, 21, xx, 2 ; I. Kings xi, 7 ; 

II. Kings xxiii, 10; Jeremiah xxxii, 35; Amos v, 26; compare with Acts vii, 43. 



RELIGIOUS CULT OF THE JAPHETHITES. 


287 


historical records or monuments of their early religion — that is, of the religious ideas devel¬ 
oped by them after having been broken off from their brethren at the time of the dispersion 
from Babel. Yet we are not altogether without traditional knowledge of their cult, as it is 
preserved to us in the noble Sanskrit records—the Vedas. The Japhethites seem to have been 
a superior race of people, versatile, idealistic, poetic, and simple-minded. They increased with 
great rapidity, and according to their genius began early to emigrate and spread themselves 
abroad over the face of the earth northward and westward. The early tradition of their relig¬ 
ion is preserved by that branch of the family which passed down from Northern and Central 
Asia through the Khyber pass into the Punjaub about the time Abraham was called out from 
the land of Ur of the Chaldees. They were a fair-faced people originally, and of a roaming 
and restless disposition. The flower of this race is seen in the settlers of Greece, where a later 
development of their religious idea is noted. Among the German and Northern peoples is seen 
the heroic qualities of their family. Of their early religious idea — for, like the Hamites, 
they seem in their dispersion to have lost the traditional revelation of God as handed down to 
them by Noah—the Vedas give us some account. Their chief and supreme god was Varuna 
or the god of light. They did not associate this supreme being with the sun, or even directly 
with the sunlight, but he was that original light that streams from behind all things and fills all 
the creation with its glory. The sun may have been thought of in later times as the burning 
eye of the Light-god, just as the rushing wind, roaring over their mountains, sighing through 
the trees, or gently fanning the cheek, was his breath. They were essentially a poetic people. 
All their worship and thought about God was light, airy, imaginative, poetic. Associated with 
Varuna were a number of minor deities or attendants, which were in effect only names for the 
attributes and characteristics of the Light-god, Varuna. They were not idolaters, and had no 
temples. They worshiped not the light of the sun, the moon, or the stars, but that primitive 
light which was before and different from either of these. This conception seems to have been 
a lingering remembrance of the earliest revelation contained in Genesis . 1 

By and by, according to a very natural tendency of the human mind and heart when it 
loses touch with the true God, materialistic ideas began to manifest themselves among the old 
Ayrans, and they thought of earthly fire as the most fitting symbol of Varuna — Agni. Yet it 
was not the material fire that they thought so much of as it was the glow of the fire, the warmth 
of it, its beneficent powers exerted in cookery, etc. The Aryans were never properly material¬ 
istic, but rather always idealistic and poetic. To fire — Agni — they presently added another 
earthly symbol of the “Intelligent Friend and Benefactor of Man,” namely, Soma, a mildly 
intoxicating drink, distilled from the soma plant. Now, as it was not fire, but Agni, the spirit 
of fire, that was worshiped, so it was not Soma the intoxicant, but rather that mysterious some¬ 
thing which exhilarated and made them “ happy.” The early Aryans, as we have said, were 
not idolaters; they had, at first, neither priest nor temple. Their worship was domestic and 
private. Theirs was the poetic habit of dreaming about the mysterious powers of nature as 
being the sign of the presence of Varuna, who made the universe; who sighed in the winds; 
who burned in the sun by day and glowed in the planets by night; who caused the rain to fall 
and the rivers to rush along; whose garments were visible in the shadows as they flitted hither 
and yonder. They not only thought more of the invisible forces than of visible phenomena, 
but they soon began, like true poets as they were, to attribute moral characteristics to these 
forces. Then they began to give them names, and these names, being of both the masculine and 
the feminine order, began to suggest the characteristics of the masculine and feminine in the 
gods. With them, however, it was never sex, but the other characteristics such as strength and 
gentleness. The old Aryans were entirely free from the grossly sensual ideas of the Hamites. 
It is true that, in later times, after their descent into India, they soon came into contact with the 


1 Genesis i, 3. 



288 


MYTHOLOGY OF GREECE AND THE NORSELAND. 


Egyptian and Mesopotamian Hamites, from whom they borrowed their ideas of caste, the 
grosser ideas of sexuality in the gods, and, indeed, all the debasing features which have entered 
into the originally pure and beautiful nature-worship of our Japhethic fathers’ religion. 

There are very distinct traces of high moral teaching among these primitive Aryans. 
Truth, purity, and hospitality, were virtues inculcated. There are evidences of a deej) sense of 
personal sin and transgression which led them to seek Yaruna for mercy. Later, we find 
various ideas of sacrifice, offered to Yaruna through Agni, or the hearth fire, or a fire built out 
in front of the house. Sometimes it was the fruit of the field, the fruit of the cow; sometimes 
it was life, as the goat, the buffalo, and finally the horse. Where they got their idea of media¬ 
tion through sacrifice is not clear, beyond many concealed suggestions that it must have been 
the remaining memory of a yet more primitive revelation. A close study even of the grossest 
forms of later Hinduism shows many a trace of the primitive revelation and history, of widely 
we have not space to write more fully. A study of the characteristics of the primitive worship 
of our Aryan fathers can but leave on our minds a feeling of its original simplicity and beauty, 
nor can we help believing that there were many worshipers of the true God, though they knew 
him not — children worshiping in the dark, feeling after God, if haply they might find him; 
and who shall say that many did not find him, who is ever seeking such to worship him— 
that is, truly spiritual men ? 

Passing from the older branch of the Aryan family, or the Japhethites, we see in their 
Greek descendants all the beautiful and splendid characteristics of the family genius breaking 
forth into most perfect flower. In Zeus we have the great> god of light and the father of all the 
gods. In their idealism and poetry we see all the characteristics of their fathers. The religion 
of the Greeks was essentially a worship of the unseen forces of nature — not of its phenomena. 
Originally there was no grossness in it; much less was there any of the coarse materialism of 
the Egyj)tians. To them, god was not in the visible phenomena, but in the mysterious and 
eternal invisible powers lying behind all of phenomena. We must look for their religion as it 
is embodied chiefly in the glorious sculptures in which the people recognized their gods—not 
the material marble, but the form into which it had been sculptured — Beauty, Grace and 
Strength, and in the beautiful myths in which these characteristics are set forth; in their 
poetry, tragic and otherwise, in which the ideal and not the material is seen and recognized. 
Like their Aryan ancestors, it is always the invisible, and mysterious, and beautiful that they 
see and worship. Not the water of the rushing torrent, but the force and motion of it. Not 
the water of the murmuring brook, but the gentleness of its motion, and the music which it 
makes rippling over its pebbly bed. Not the light of the morning, but the dawn of the day. 
Not the night, but the mystery of the creeping shadows. Not the wind or the zephyr, but the 
noise of the wind and the whisper and kiss of the zephyr. Even after the Egyptians and 
the Phoenicians had made a great impact upon these Aryan Greeks, who borrowed from them 
their Hamite gods, it was not the grosser conceptions. For instance, in Aphrodite, we scarcely, 
at the beginning, see anything of Isis, or the sexual idea of womanhood and the conceptive 
principle of nature, but only the grace and beauty of the female form and the gentleness and 
charm of the female character. 

The same characteristics — I mean the ideal and poetical — may be seen in the sterner 
conceptions of the German and Norseman. Originally, it was never with them the materialistic 
and gross, but the idealistic and the poetic. With them the powers of nature rather than 
nature are worshiped, and all these idealized and set forth in most charming myths, legends, and 
fairy stories. The nymphs of the woods and waters, of the darkness and the shadows, and all 
the delightful fairy stories these poetic people gave birth to and incorporated with their religion. 
It is true, there are some awfully stern and terrible aspects of god in Thor and Woden, but 
none of the gross and bestial traits of the gods of Egypt and Babylon, of Phoenicia and Canaan. 


THREE RELIGIONS CONTRASTED. 


289 


The Greeks were finally corrupted, first in their religious ideas by contact with Egypt and 
Phoenicia, and later on in morals and life, and so fell from their high estate into the mire and 
filth of Hamitism. Even so did Israel fall from her high estate into the arms of Baal and 
Astarte. The Greek god Zeus is, undoubtedly, of Aryan or primitive Indo-Germanic origin, 
but later corruptions, borrowed from the Egyptians, degraded this immortal god to a human or 
mortal being, subject to birth and death — a mere nature-god. This remark is also true of 
others of the Greek deities of the first rank. 

Considering the whole Greek conception of religion and worship, we find that in primitive 
times it was not only infinitely purer and higher than the Egyptian, but that it carried with it 
all the characteristics of the genius of the Aryan family. Idealism, poetry, art, intellectuality 
of the higher sort, and even spirituality. We may say that the fundamental religious ideas of 
the Greeks found expression in their art, their poetry, their philosophy, their love of the true, 
the beautiful, and the good; but their evil communications with the Egyptians and the Phoeni¬ 
cians corrupted their morals as well as their civilization, and ultimately led to their downfall. 
Considered from their own point of view, we see all the proper characteristics of the Indo- 
European religion. A most careful student of this matter remarks of the Greek: He “ is a 
most decided idealist, in direct contrast to the blank materialism of more recent times [the 
result of Egyptian ideas early communicated through contact with their religious conception of 
the gods]. “In mountain, grotto, river, waves, and the like, the material part interests him 
not at all; in his sight it entirely fades away. What does concern him, what interests and 
affects him, is the grace, the clearness, and the movement of the fountain, the unchanging might 
of the river, the shady darkness of the grove, the luxuriant moisture of the meadow, the play 
of color on the waves of the ocean — in short, it is these, and other similar spiritual qualities, 
as it were, which react upon his soul. These he does not regard as qualities belonging to the 
body, but he feels them to be manifestations of life, forms of divine activity; and these divine 
energies at once become to him divine figures and divine persons. In Helios, the Greek did not 
worship the sun, but the god who causes the sun to rise and bestows upon men the benefits of 
light. In Zeus he did not worship the heavens, but the high, ethical, divine personality that 
gained by lot the heavens in ether and clouds. Among the Greeks, in the bloom of Indo- 
European mythology, there was preserved, and at the same time developed in a peculiar 
manner, precisely that ideal and ethical character which we ascribe to the Indo-European 
genius in general.” 

It is a pleasure to turn from this review of the religion of the Hamites and Japhethites, 
in the former of which families all is so gross and bestial, and in the latter all so vague and 
unreal, though to a certain extent pure and ennobling, to consider the fundamental idea of the 
Shemites, from whom sprang the Hebrew nation, and to whom, in an especial manner, 
pertained the covenants and promises of God. The Shemites, as we have seen, were mainly 
settled in Upper Arabia and Mesopotamia. They were almost entirely dominated by the 
Hamites, as far as their civilization and material condition were concerned; but there is every 
reason to believe that they kept and maintained in comparative purity their traditional religious 
and moral life. At least there is no evidence that they were idolaters or polytheists, except 
when apostatized to the Hamites. For a record of the religious cult of this family of the 
human race, we must depend almost exclusively upon the Bible, the most ancient and authentic 
record of primitive times. The name Shem is significant, as, indeed, are also the names of 
Ham and Japheth. Ham, meaning “ hot,” and probably pointing to human passions which so 
largely characterized the religion of his descendants. Japheth, meaning “enlargement,” points 
to that vast Indo-European population which sprang from him, coupled with the activity of 
temperament which was so characteristic of his family. Shem signifies “name,” and probably 
points to that “Name” above all names, which from the first was the object of his contemplation. 


290 


EARLY RELIGIOUS CULTS—PRIMEVAL WORSHIP. 


Tlie Hamites were dwellers in cities and great and mighty builders, and were devoted to 
the arts and sciences. They were great astronomers and mathematicians. They cultivated the 
soil and increased its productiveness. The Japhethites, originally nomadic, became travelers, 
soldiers, artists and poets, philosophers and civilizers, rather as culturists than materialists. 
We need only to contrast the architecture of the Egyptians with that of the Greeks to see the 
vast and essential difference between the civilization developed by the one religious idea and 
that of the other. The one is earthly and heavy; the other is heavenly and light. The one 
is from beneath, the other from above. The Shemites were never city builders. They were 
not even agriculturists. They were nomadic — shepherds and herdsmen — perhaps in some 
cases merchants, traveling from one part of the world to another. They lived in tents, not in 
houses — in the open fields, and not in towns and cities. Their temple was the open heavens 
—their god was an invisible NAME, whom they adored and worshiped in spirit, without even 
an attempt to embody or identify him with any visible phenomena. He was the creator, but 
never the creature. He was over all, above all, and blessed. The three cults were as follows: 
Hamites, materialists; Japhethites, idealists; Shemites, spiritualists. Their religious ideas were 
derived, probably, as follows: Hamites, from observation — material science; Japhethites, from 
speculation — philosophical culture; Shemites, from inspiration — revelation. 


CHAPTER III. 

WORSHIP IN PRIMITIVE TIMES. 

T HERE can be hardly a doubt that the first and happy pair whom God created and placed 
in the Garden of Eden worshiped him there for the brief period of their primeval inno¬ 
cence ; though no specific account is given us. That they knew the “ voice of the Lord ” and 
that he was in the habit of “ walking with them in the Garden in the cool of the day, and 
talking with them,” 1 we most assuredly gather from the Scriptures. How God appeared to 
them we do not know, but most likely as he did in later times in some form as of the “ Angel 
of the Lord,” of whose first appearance we read in Genesis xvi, where he came and spoke 
words of comfort and cheer to poor, outcast Hagar . 2 All such appearances were but the fore¬ 
shadowings of the final incarnation of God among men in the person of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

What the manner of this primeval worship was, we have no means of knowing; but it 
was, most likely, adoration and the sweet communion of simplicity; for sin had not yet entered 
in, and there was no need of sacrifice or any kind of propitiation, no confession of sin, and 
probably not even prayer, for the Lord God was ever present. But after sin entered in, and 
man had awakened to the full consciousness of his moral nature and all its terrible responsibili¬ 
ties, there came in a new form of worship. In his abounding mercy God did not cut man off 
on account of his sin, but proceeded at once to reclaim him. In this act of grace we have the 
first glimpse of the inauguration of sacrifice as a means of approach to God, and as underlying 
all subsequent worship. To the guilty pair, God spoke words of hope and encouragement, 
taking their part against the serpent who beguiled them, and promising that in due time there 
should arise from among their descendants one who should bruise the head of the serpent 3 
and so deliver them, and bring them back to God in reconciliation and peace. At this time we 
are told that God made them “ coats of skins, and clothed them .” 4 Up to this time death had 


1 Genesis iii, 8, 9. 
3 Genesis iii, 15. 


2 See Genesis xviii, 1, 2,13,17-21; Joshua v, 13-15; Judges xiii, 3,18. 

4 Genesis iii, 21. 




PRIMITIVE WORSHIP OF JEHOVAH. 


291 


not entered into the world. But, in order to clothe the sinful pair with coats of skin, some 
animal or animals had to be slain and from them the skins were taken. There can be no doubt 
that the animals thus slain were used in sacrifice, and their skins taken for clothing — not 
only in the physical sense, but also in a deeper spiritual and moral sense. The sacrifice thus 
offered was undoubtedly the first great type of the sacrifice of Christ, that “ seed of the 
woman,” before promised, and the skin-clothing representing that righteousness of Christ which 
is still our only covering. Isaiah beautifully sings of this divine clothing, in connection with 
the great promise of the coming Messiah: “ I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall 
be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered 
me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a 
bride adorneth herself with her jewels .” 1 Later on in the story of man, in his relation to God, 
as a religious being, we find Cain and Abel approaching God to worship him, each with an 
offering. Cain bringing his offering from the fruits of the earth, while Abel brought his 
sacrifice from the flock . 2 Of these two offerings and offerers, one was accepted and the other 
rejected. Abel’s offering was accepted because it was offered in faith 3 — that is, in obedience to 
directions which God had given, and in confidence that he would be accepted through his 
obedience or faith in the matter of the offering. That there was at least, on Abel’s part, 
confession of sin, praise, and prayer we must assume from what we know of the nature of 
worship, as developed later on, all which had connection with these earliest acts of faith and 
worship. We know, further, that about this time there occurred a schism in the human family, 
the one part worshiping God according to the rule of faith, the other part apostatizing from 
God according to the unbelief and pride of Cain. In the days of the third son of Adam (that 
is, the third whose genealogy is given) we read: “ Then began men to call upon the name of 
the Lord,” or more literally, “ to call themselves by the name of the Lord .” 4 This reminds us 
of what is said of the early disciples of Christ: “ And the disciples were called Christians first 
in Antioch .” 5 At that time, when men first began to call themselves by the name of the Lord, 
they certainly, also, with this confession of faith called upon his name in confession and prayer, 
and no doubt in adoration and praise. At any rate, there was evidently a very definite habit of 
worship, in which apparently the worshipers acknowledged their sins, and cast themselves upon 
God for his mercy. This worship continued in a lessening number of people during the ante¬ 
diluvian period until apparently very few were left. Among these were Enoch “ who walked 
with God,” 6 and obtained “ this witness that he pleased God .” 7 Noah also walked with God, 
having “found grace with him.” 8 All this implies worship—that is, communication with God 
in respect of man’s needs, moral and spiritual. And this is true worship! That Noah was 
familiar with, and habituated to, sacrificial worship is plain from the fact that the first thing he 
did after coming out of the ark with his household was to build an altar unto the Lord, and 
“ took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar .” 9 
Surely, it is impossible not to conclude that such acts of worship were even continued during 
the time of their imprisonment in the ark. At least, if the sacrifices were not continued while 
in the ark, worship was. That Noah called upon the name of the Lord, and ordered what we 
would call “ family worship ” with his household day by day, we cannot but think. 

After the great spiritual rebellion in the family of Ham, which culminated in the building 
of the tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues by the Lord, and the subsequent scattering of 
the people, there seems to have been a great general apostasy. The Japhethites seem to have 
migrated toward the north, the Hamites westward and southward, settling in Egypt; while the 
Shemites took to the plains of Mesopotamia and Upper Arabia. In course of time, the Hamites 
largely flowed back upon the Shemites, and the two families became to a certain extent mixed, 

1 Isaiah lxi, 10 ; compare Philippians iii, 8, 9; Revelation xix, 8. 2 Genesis iv, 4, 5. 3 Hebrews xi, 4. 

* Genesis iv, 26. 5 Acts xi, 26. 6 Genesis v, 22. 7 Hebrews xi, 5. 8 Genesis vi, 8, 9. 9 Genesis viii, 20, 21. 



292 


TRADITIONAL REVELATION PRESERVED. 


the Hamites largely dominating the children of Shem. In the opening chapter of this book, 
we have already seen in detail something of this race movement. The Shemites were much 
corrupted by the gross idolatry of the Hamites, which they gradually adopted, together with 
their civilization; so that we see that even Terah, the father of Abraham, had become an 
idolater. How long an interval of time had elapsed between the overthrow of the conspiracy 
at Babel and the call of Abraham, we have no certain means of knowing. It must have been 
a much longer period of time than we are wont to think from the simple and fragmentary 
character of Bible history, which does not pretend to give us complete history, but only so 
much of it as is necessary for the purpose of setting forth God’s revelation to us. In any 
case, we are safe in saying, that, though Ham and his descendants had completely apostatized 
from God and given themselves up to gross and carnal “nature-worship,” and Japheth and 
his descendants (though at the time of Abraham they had not yet fallen into the materialism 
and bestiality of Ham) had, in a large measure, lost the earlier and more spiritual tradition of 
God, and had begun only through a very fine and poetic idealism to seek God, “ if haply they 
might feel after him, and find him ” again, there were those in the family of Shem who had 
preserved the tradition of God as he was known before the flood, and by their father, the son of 
Noali. These few, no doubt, preserved a true and spiritual worship of God, holding to the unity 
and spirituality of his being, and worshiping him as the Creator of the world and the Preserver 
of men; as the One against whom sin is committed, and from whom forgiveness must come. 
There is reason to believe, from the most recent discoveries, that in the great and splendid city 
of Ur of the Chaldees, from whence Abraham came, though wholly given over to the Hamite 
worship, traditions of the creation, the flood, the confusion of tongues at Babel were still 
retained, and especially is it noteworthy that at least one ordinance of God was somehow 
preserved and still held sacred out of the ruin of revelation, namely, the sanctification of the 
Sabbath day. “Other sacred usages, originally of divine origin, but sadly corrupted in 
Abraham’s day, also survived. The summits of all the mighty towers and temples, with which 
the country abounded, had their altars, on which sacrifices were offered to their gods.” Their 
gods, indeed, were mere creatures of their imagination or the powers of nature which they had 
personified; but their sacrifices were the corrupted and degenerated remains of a once pure and 
spiritual worship, offered to the true and only Jehovah. Whatever of pure and spiritual 
conception of God remained at this age of the world was preserved by the descendants of 
Shem. Abraham, reared amidst all these splendid and sensuous idolatries, seems to have been 
one who still retained in comparative, if not in absolute purity, a faith in one only and true 
God, and he refused to bow down to and worship the false gods of the heathen people around 
him. The traditions of Abraham’s struggles with his idolatrous neighbors, and even of his 
conflict with his father, preserved by the Jews, are full of interest, but we have not the space to 
allow of their rehearsal. Abraham did preserve his soul in purity, as the lily does its beauty 
though resting in the pools of blackest water. Abraham was, perhaps, the last of his race to 
whom the knowledge of God remained in anything like purity and simplicity. It is probable, 
therefore, that God called him out from among the heathen of Ur, as he did Lot out of Sodom, 
that with him there might be a new beginning of worship in the knowledge of God. It is 
almost certain that the exodus of Abraham and his kindred was about contemporary with the 
founding of Babylon — in other words, just before the vast populations of these parts had 
slidden down hopelessly into the utter darkness and degradation of the Hamitic worship. 

We do not lose sight of the fact, however, that in the land toward which Abraham 
migrated, and in which he had an actual home, God still had his witnesses—or at least one 
witness. For in this land, and just after he had returned from the pursuit and victory over 
the confederate kings from whom he rescued his nephew, Lot, and other chief citizens of 
Sodom, and recovered all the spoil taken from the city, Abraham met with that strange and 




ABRAHAM AND MELCH1ZEDEK. 


293 


mysterious personality, Melchizedek, priest of the Most High Gocl . 1 In Melchizedek Abraham 
met with one who was even in advance of him in knowledge, and above him in spiritual rela¬ 
tion. Here, also, we get a glimpse of some other external elements in primitive worship. The 
king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, which, without question, were used, as we say, 
eucharistically, or in any case spiritually; and here, also, we find Abraham giving to Melchiz¬ 
edek tithes of all he possessed. The account is very meager, but it helps us to understand 
something of the fundamentals of primitive worship. Who this Melchizedek was, it is difficult 
to say. Whether a solitary priest of God in those dark and apostate regions, or whether he 
was an early manifestation of our Lord Jesus, come down to meet with and instruct Abraham, 
who had been chosen as the progenitor of a new race of believing men, we do not know. I am 
inclined to think he was a supernatural being—even Jehovah himself—appearing to Abraham 
to teach him the way of life and godliness; and the more so that, up to this time, we have no 
suggestion of any priesthood among the Semitic people. 

Before the time of meeting with Melchizedek, we find Abraham building altars at several 
places on his line of march and journeyings . 2 What was offered upon these altars we do not 
know, as no account is given. Doubtless, a lamb from the flock, as being in accordance witli 
the early traditions; or, at most, some birds or beasts from among the “clean” creatures. 
That the offering was an act of worship, and was accompanied by words spoken by the wor¬ 
shiper there is no doubt; for we read that on Abraham’s return from Egypt, whither he had 
gone down on account of the famine, he returned to the place where he had first set up an 
altar, and “ there he called on the name of the Lord.” It will be no stretch of the imagina¬ 
tion to supply the simple service that took place at that altar where Abraham tarried on his 
way up out of Egypt. In the days of Seth, the third from Adam, we have seen that men 
“ began to call upon the name of the Lord.” They must have had the very same warrant then 
that the psalmist had, centuries later, when he declared of the Lord that he “ is nigh unto all 
them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of 
them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them .” 3 We can fancy Abraham 
reverently drawing near to the altar on which he had placed his offering, either standing or 
kneeling, with face upturned toward heaven and saying: “ O Lord, truly I am thy servant; 
I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds. I will offer to 
thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord .” 4 

In this land of Canaan, where Abraham was sojourning, and where he subsequently 
remained after Isaac had been given to him, the Hamites, in their idolatrous worship, mingled 
the blood of their own children in the sacrifices to their false gods, especially to Moloch. 
Abraham was familiar with the rite of human sacrifice as practiced by the heathen, both in 
Canaan and in the city of Ur from whence he had been called out. Once and for all God 
tried his faith in this matter, and stayed his hand as it was uplifted to slay his son, and said 
unto him: “ Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine 
only son, from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a 
ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him 
up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son .” 5 This was God’s way of at once trying the 
faith of Abraham, and forever putting from him and his descendants the awful crime of human 
sacrifice, and at the same time, by the combined offering of Isaac and the final slaying of the 
ram, we have a prophecy of the coming great Sacrifice which Christ, through the eternal Spirit, 
made of himself, when he offered himself a sacrifice for sin to God. The sons of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, followed in the footsteps of their father in their manner of worship. 

Before attempting any summary of the element which entered into the primitive worship 
of those who knew the true God, it is necessary that we include in our data the simple story of 


1 Genesis xiv, 18-20. 


2 Genesis xii, 7, xiii, 4,18. 3 Psalm cxlv, 18, 19. 


‘Psalm exvi, 16, 17. 


0 Genesis xxii, 10-13. 



294 


DOCTRINES UNDERLYING PRIMITIVE WORSHIP. 


the worship practiced by the patriarch Job. We read that at that time, say about midway 
between Abraham and Moses, it was the custom of “ the sons of God to present themselves 
before the Lord.” 1 This may have been some solemn annual feast, at which all the pious 
people of the countryside gathered to worship. But what is more interesting still is the fact 
that Job himself was in the habit of connecting with his worship a solemn sacrifice for sin. It 
was the custom in those days and in that country to celebrate with feasting and mirth the birth¬ 
days of the children of a family. Job had a large family of seven sons and three daughters. 
On the recurring birthdays of these sons, they in turn would all assemble to celebrate them with 
eating and drinking wine. There is every reason to believe that these children of Job were 
piously brought up, and worshipful children. Job did not join them in their feasting, as either 
being too old, or as having no particular taste for such mirthfulness, though not unwilling that 
his children should have a happy and joyous time. He was not afraid of their going to any 
length of deliberate sinfulness, but he was afraid that, in the midst of their merriment, they 
might “curse God” — that is, forget or “renounce God” — by falling into that overconfi¬ 
dence of youth and under the power of the present. He, therefore, after the round of feasting 
was over, “ sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt 
offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said. It may be that my sons have 
sinned and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.” 2 “ No more lovely scene 
of simple faith and religious peace has ever been conceived than that which the historian 
discovers to us in these five verses.” This lets us into two facts. That the sacrifices offered in 
these primitive times were in part expiatory in their nature, and were offered, not by a specially 
appointed priest but either by the individual worshiper on his own behalf, or by the father, as 
priest of his own household there. Religion with the Semites was not a national and state 
affair. It was no elaborate cult for priests and temples, with all the ritual of a priesthood 
attached, but a simple approach to God by the individual, or at most by a father in behalf of 
his family. This simplicity obtained among the early people of God until the time of the 
Exodus, when they were taken up out of Egypt and in the Wilderness organized into a nation 
with a national religion to be observed formally and continuously until the great Antitype — 
the Eternal Son of God — should come and take up into himself all these sensuous and visible 
ceremonials by fulfilling them. 

We may now very well gather together in a few sentences what we have learned of the 
most primitive worship: 

1. A belief in one only and true God whom they worshiped as the Creator and Preserver 
of men. 

2. An acknowledgment of human sin and transgression, on account of which appeal for 
forgiveness must be made to God. 

3. A belief that with God there was mercy and forgiveness for sinful men. 

4. That in order to obtain the divine forgiveness, sin must be confessed and a sacrifice 
offered in the blood of some animal, by which the demerit of sin was expressed in the death of 
the sacrifice, and acceptance of the sacrifice acknowledged by the rising smoke from the altar. 

5 . That the worship of God also included the expression of glad thanksgiving to him for 
all the common mercies of life. 

6. The character of God as holy and just, as the Overseer of his people, was clearly - 
recognized; and that he was also a living Redeemer who would, in full time, take up and 
avenge our wrongs and vindicate his righteousness in his dealings with us. 

7. That he is a being infinitely near to us, though also infinitely separated and apart from 
us; yet so cognizant of all our affairs, so tender and regardful of, so absolutely incapable of 
doing us any wrong or of allowing any wrong to be done to us that is permanent, that, “ though 


1 Job i, 6. 


2 Job i, 5. 




JOB. 


























296 


THE BOOK OF JOB. 


he should seem to slay us, or in fact should do so, as far as this life is concerned, we may still 
trust him, and that without being able to understand or fathom his ways.” 

8. That two worlds are ours, one in which we now live and one into which we shall come 
after the life that now is has been lived out. 

9. The very existence of God transcendent to us, and yet to whom we are bound as the 
subject of love and worship, is the absolute ground of our faith in a life to come. We, indeed, 
see this more clearly than did the early worshipers of God, yet they also did discern it and 
rejoiced in it. “ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; ” and not of the present 
living inhabitants of this earth, hut of those living ones who were once dead, as Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob. 


CHAPTER W. 


THE STORY OF JOB. 


Y common consent of all critics the Book of Job, if not the very oldest, is the finest poem 



in the world. Both Gibbon, the historian, and Carlyle, that master of criticism in literary 
matters, agree that in all the literature of the world there is no work with which it can be 
compared, its excellency in every direction is so preeminent. And yet it is a book that is not 
generally read, even by Bible readers; perhaps because the argument is sometimes difficult to 
follow; perhaps because few have come to understand that, though written in proverbial form, 
its argument is sustained with perfect continuity from beginning to end. It ought to be read 
through, if not at a single sitting, at least with a careful remembrance of what has gone before, 
if the reading is to be broken, or taken up at intervals. 

That Job was a real person it seems to me there ought not to be any reasonable doubt. 
Like Abraham, he is altogether too human to be an invention, too much like ourselves, 
especially in his weaknesses, to be a myth. It would be difficult to understand how Ezekiel 
could have referred to him in connection with Noah and Daniel, two undoubted historical 
characters, if he had not been known as a historical personage; or how James could have 
referred to him as the greatest example of patience, if there had been any suspicion that he was 
a mere fiction. 1 Nevertheless, there are some able critics who maintain that the whole book — 
characters and all — is a purely fictitious work, designed to serve the purpose of teaching, much 
like our Lord’s parables. But we must remember that the best canon for the settlement of all 
such questions is that one which assumes that the obvious impression which Scripture makes 
upon the common mind is the true one. If we should follow all the mazes of modern criticism 
as to the historical truth of the various books of the Bible, their genuineness, authenticity, 
dates, etc., we should be absolutely landed in confusion worse confounded in respect to almost 
every separate book in the Bible. I do not say that, should it be proved that this sublime 
book is a pure work of fiction, a parabolic drama worked out for the purpose of setting before 
us in this concrete way the most difficult problems of life, such a fact would in any way 
invalidate the book as a part of the teaching which God has given us for our learning and 
comfort, but only there is no proof that such is the case. The story itself may be either a 
literal history in all its details, or it may be a dramatized history, based on substantial facts, 
much as Shakspeare has dramatized the personal histories of some of the English kings. In 
either case, the story is equally valuable. I am inclined strongly to the opinion, after doing 
my best through many years of study, that the story is a true and literal one, preserved by 


1 Ezekiel xiv, 14; James v, 11. 




HOME AND FAITH OF TIIE PATRIARCH. 


297 


the good providence of God and handed down to us from those long-ago centuries in which 
Job lived, first by oral tradition, and subsequently written by some unknown author whose 
genius was directed by the inspiring and guiding Spirit of God, much in the same way, as to 
mode, as the Homeric tales have been preserved to us, first by oral tradition, and later by some 
great poet who edited and then wrote them down. It is quite possible that, in editing the story 
of Job and his friends, the editor has taken a lawful literary license in the construction and 
movement of this great life drama. 

Assuming, then, the reality of the characters set forth in the book, we are still left much 
in the dark as to the exact locality of Uz, the dwelling place of our great patriarch. The topo¬ 
graphical references, as well as allusions, to the various natural phenomena throughout the 
poem cannot be taken as a certain guide. It is most likely that Job was an Arab prince, a 
Semite who never lost the knowledge of the true God, and who held fast by the primitive reve¬ 
lation handed down by Noah, not always without loss or additions, but in the main sufficiently 
pure to save those who heeded it from idolatry and polytheism. The whole book goes to 
show that not only Job, but his friends, had a most exalted and pure conception of God as the 
transcendent Creator and Moral Governor of the world, as well as the Preserver of men. The 
land of Uz, it’ would seem from many Scriptural references, was to the east of Palestine, and 
north of Edom, and bordering on the western confines of Chaldea. Job himself was no doubt 
a patriarch of that middle era to which Abraham belonged—certainly he lived long before 
Moses. The great longevity to which he attained—an hundred and forty years, 1 —the mention 
of only one kind of money, 2 and the fact that only the three most ancient musical instruments 
are mentioned, 3 all point to the fact that Job lived in a very early age after the dispersion of 
the three families of Noah from the plains of Babel. He lived, therefore, in an age long before 
Moses had written the law, or instituted the Hebrew worship. The absence of all reference to 
any former Scripture, to Jerusalem, to the Law, or to any ceremonial observance known to the 
Hebrews, is sufficient evidence of this fact. Moreover, there is in all Job’s utterances a con¬ 
tinual undertone and outcry for a revelation of God, which seems never to have been given, up 
to the time Jehovah spoke toward the close of the book. The piety and worship of Job was 
either the result of the highest type of natural religion — not nature-worship — or the result, 
as we have said, of a knowledge of God obtained from the primitive revelation handed down 
by Noah. The latter supposition is the more probable. In no other religion than that of the 
Semites do we find anything like such pure and exalted ideas of God. That Job knew some¬ 
thing of the law of righteousness and the meaning of sacrifice, in connection with worship on 
account of sin, is another evidence of the comparative purity of his conception of God. The 
Noachian traditions must have been still comparatively fresh in Job’s time; and if he lived 
contemporarily with, or immediately after, Abraham, it is not improbable that some of the 
knowledge vouchsafed to Abraham was imparted to Job and to those men who, like him — his 
three friends, and doubtless many others who lived in the same times — were the worshipers of 
the true God. The book in its present form was most probably written in the Solomonic age — 
that is, the history preserved for us in the book belonged to an age about sixteen centuries 
before Christ, whereas the poem itself was composed something like 700 or 800 years before the 
advent of our Lord. 

To give a perfect analysis of the book — or rather, we should say, this sublime drama — 
would require more space than is at our disposal, though I regard it as one of the most impor¬ 
tant books in the Bible. Yet we must be content with the merest outline of this story of 
human suffering and struggle after God. Let it be first understood that there is in this book no 
mere philosophical conception of God. God is known either from an original revelation of 


'Job xlii, 16. 2 Job xlii, 11; compare Genesis xxxiii, 19. 

s Job xxi, 12, xxx, 31; compare Genesis iv, 21, xxxi, 27. 



298 


BOOK OF JOB ANALYZED. 


himself, or from a moral and spiritual apprehension of him through the religious nature. Job 
is essentially a religious, not simply a moral book. In it we find religion pure and simple — 
that is, it has to do with the relations existing between God and man, the human and the 
divine. It is a highly individualized statement of religion; for while there is an occasional 
reference to other persons, and even to man in general — indeed, “ there is,” as Carlyle says, a 
“noble universality” about it—it has to do solely with the question of God’s dealings with this 
one man Job, as a man known to him and in whom he has the deepest interest. So, on the 
other hand, God was to him a God personally and individually related to him — his Daysman, 
his Kinsman, his Kedeemer—upon whom he passionately laid a personal claim for help and 
deliverance out of his miseries, especially out of the miseries arising from the tormenting 
mental and spiritual problems which were rioting in his soul, while he was groping about in 
impenetrable darkness. The movement of the great religious inquiry is, indeed, from beneath 
upward — that is, Job starts from himself and his own misfortunes and seeks to reach upward 
to God. He is constantly interpreting God by his experiences, rather than interpreting his 
experiences by God. A more lofty phase of religion comes later on when God fully reveals 
himself to Job and comforts him with a fuller and diviner knowledge of the truth than he had 
before. 

The book is divided into three parts: The Prologue, the Argument, and the Postlude. 
The first and the last are in prose, while the body of the book is in the most classic poetry — a 
poetry which the late Mr. Froude said “will one day be seen towering up alone, far above all 
the poetry of the world.” The argument is in three cycles, conducted between Job and his 
three friends, each friend appearing in each of the cycles except the last, in which one of 
them retires. In general, we may be content with saying that the argument turns on the 
relation of affliction to the sins of those afflicted, and on the use of suffering as an instrument 
for the sanctification and discipline of the righteous, without regard to any particular sin 
committed by the afflicted one, but rather with regard to the inherent sinfulness of the nature 
of man, and with reference to his future and higher standing and communion with God. It 
has been called the book of individual discipline for the learning of self. It has sometimes 
been allegorized and dealt with as a parable of man, as such, in relation to sin and God. An 
acute student of this school of interpreters gives us this point of view: (a) Job the right¬ 
eous man (Adam) before his trial; (£) Job (Adam) under trial; (c) Job’s (Adam’s) fall or 
failure under trial; (d) the failure of Experience, Tradition, and Law, the three points of 
view of the three friends, taken in their argument with Job to humble Job (the natural man) 
and bring him to a confession of not only sin but sinfulness before God; ( e ) Job’s (man’s) self- 
righteousness ; (/) Job (man) under revelation; ( g ) Job (man) under God’s direct and 
personal teaching; ( h ) Job (man) under conviction and thoroughly penitent; (i) Job (peni¬ 
tent man) forgiven; and (j) Job restored and glorified. This is suggestive but fanciful, 
and certainly detracts from the sublimer teachings of the book. 

1. The Crux. The whole meaning of the Book of Job turns upon the historical 
incident set forth in the prologue. Here we find God pointing Job out to Satan (who had 
come up with the sons of God) as “ a perfect and an upright man,” “ one that feared God 
and eschewed evil.” To this eulogium of Job Satan made reply: “Doth Job serve God for 
naught ? ” That is, this “ accuser of the brethren ” at once denied the genuineness of Job’s 
piety, and grounded it in selfishness. He served God because it was profitable for him to do so. 
His piety was, Satan insinuated, of a purely commercial character. This insinuation God 
rejected and allowed Satan to put the matter to test. Then follows the terrible loss of property 
and of all Job’s children. A perfect hurricane of trouble this ! Yet Job sinned not, but held 
fast his integrity; instead of being tempted by his afflictions to renounce God, he nobly bowed 
to the storm and answered, with his mantle rent and his face on the ground in an attitude of 


THEOLOGY OF JOB. 


299 


worship : “ The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” 1 
Again Satan appeared before God, and the integrity of Job was pointed out, notwithstanding 
the terrible and unmerited afflictions which had been permitted to fall upon him. To this 
Satan made reply, turning even Job’s piety into an account against him: “Skin for skin; yea 
all that a man hath will he give for his life.” That is, Job is a selfish man, indifferent to the 
loss of children, caring only for himself. As long as he keeps his own skin whole and his life 
to himself he will do very well; “ but put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone, and his 
flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.” 2 The Lord delivered him a second time into the 
hand of Satan to do his worst, short of taking his life, which would have been fatal to the trial. 
Satan did his worst, smiting him with boils from head to feet. The disease was probably the 
most loathsome form of leprosy known as elephantiasis. We read that it was a burning and 
wasting fever in his flesh, and that it struck in even to his bones. It banished him from his 
house and family, and drove him to one of the huge ashlieaps common in oriental countries. 
There he became a byword and a reproach to everyone — even the little children mocked him. 
To his wife, who taunted him, he replied with sublime meekness: “What! Shall we receive 
good at the hands of God, and shall we not receive evil?” “In all this did not Job sin with 
his lips.” This, then, is the question to be tried to a conclusion: Is religion, where it really 
exists, a matter of selfishness, dependent upon any measure of profit or reward ? When a soul 
is truly related to God, will the integrity of that relation stand in spite of all trials which the 
man may have to undergo ? The service of God is not without reward, but it is not for reward. 
“ Godliness is profitable for the life that now is and that which is to come,” but truly religious 
men are not religious for the sake of the profit; they will gladly suffer the loss of all things 
and “ count them but dung,” if only they may win God and Christ and be found in him, not 
having their own righteousness but the righteousness, communion, and companionship of God. 

The other great matter growing out of this trial of Job is one that naturally follows, 
namely, that true religion has its strength in that old and often repeated declaration: “ The 
just shall live by faith.” According to the accepted theology of Job and his friends, profitable¬ 
ness was closely associated with piety. God was conceived of as holy and just, dealing with 
men solely on principles of retributive justice. The good would be rewarded with all manner 
of temporal blessings, and the wicked would be followed in this life with disaster and over¬ 
throw, so that righteousness and wickedness alike were rewarded and punished in this life. 
This was a “sight” theology; and it was on this basis that Satan framed his attack upon Job. 
It was the overthrow of this theology which brought Job into his deepest darkness, threw him 
into the most profound distress of mind, and tormented him most, leading him almost to blas¬ 
pheme God and charge him with injustice in allowing such suffering to come upon him without 
any just cause for it. For in the madness of Job’s bitter complaint, frantic with trouble, he 
charges God with injustice, not only toward him but toward man in general, if a righteous man, 
such as he confessedly should be and consciously was, was allowed to suffer as he was suffering, 
and especially if God took no notice of it, nor came to his relief. He also craves at the same 
time vindication from the false accusation under which he was compelled to lie by reason of the 
charges of his three friends. In fact, Job, in this time of mental disturbance and spiritual 
darkness, accuses God of injustice in two different ways; first, that he was unjust in his 
dealings with men, in respect of suffering, where there was no direct reason for it, as in his 
case—for he knew that he had committed no special iniquity and knew that his conscience was 
good in God’s sight—and, secondly, that it was of no advantage for a man to be righteous, since 
evil followed the righteous even as the wicked man. In this he came near justifying Satan’s 
taunt, that religious men served God for profit and not out of pure devotion. The remarkable 
thing is that in all this maelstrom of temptation, under these frightful trials and mental 


•Jobi, 20 , 21 . 


2 Job ii, 5. 



300 


THE FIERY FURNACE OF AFFLICTION. 


distress, Job never renounced God. Even when he charged him with injustice in a moment of 
passion, he fell at his feet in the next sentence, and cried out: “ O not that, my God! I do 
not know, I do not understand! In any case, whatever be the truth, and however deep be the 
darkness; however sorely thou mayest afflict me, it seems as without a cause; yea, though thou 
slay me, yet will I trust thee.” 1 This, then, is the answer to Satan. The true man serves God 
not with sight, or because it is profitable, and because he understands all his dealings with him, 
but because he believes God and trusts him, without profit, without present blessedness, without 
understanding. “ The just shall live by faith.” 

2. Job’s Temptations. The temptations or trials of Job were, as above intimated, three¬ 
fold. (a) The sudden downcoming of the storm which swept away at one stroke all his wealth 
and robbed him of all his children. A greater calamity, at first thought, it would seem impos¬ 
sible for any man to suffer. Such a tornado of trouble coming, as it were, like a bolt out of a 
clear blue sky, was enough to lift the best of men off his feet. Looked at from the point of view 
of a man who, like Job, “ feared God and eschewed evil,” whose whole life was one continuous 
act of devotion, it is not surprising that even the astute Satan concluded that religion would not 
survive such a shock. It is never once intimated that Job ever thought that Satan had a hand 
in these calamities. His religious belief did not give to Satan such sovereign power as would 
make it possible for him to do such a thing without divine permission. Thus from the start Job 
attributed the stroke to God’s own hand. “ The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away.” 
So neither could Job know nor understand that God was trying him under challenge, only that 
his gold might be refined and the true glory of religious faith and character be brought more 
clearly to light. Had he known what was (so to speak) going on behind the scenes, the trial 
might have been painful for the moment, but it would not have moved him, more especially 
could he have seen what God had in reserve for him as disclosed finally in the epilogue of the 
story. But it is not given to us to know all things, especially God’s “ whys and wherefores.” 
It is the part and office of faith for us to trust God without knowing what his counsels are. 

(5) Job’s second trial was when Satan put forth his hand to afflict his body. How 
grievous this affliction was, we have already noted. Not only in itself, but coming upon the 
back of the other trial, it was worse than if it had stood alone. The first might have been an 
inscrutable providence that faith might, with comparative ease, have overcome as being excep¬ 
tional. Then Job might have pointed to his spared family, his own health, and been comforted 
with the natural and kindly sympathy of his friends, while by his industry and wisdom he 
could have repaired his losses. But, coming as a second stroke, it seemed all too convincing 
that it was mysteriously from God and had in it some retributive meaning. Especially would 
this be the interpretation of Job’s friends and neighbors. It was this, in fact, that turned 
against Job his neighbors, who had once been in the constant habit of honoring him—the 
young men and the old men, and especially the children and his many servants. Now they all 
look upon him as one whom God had forsaken and punished as for some unknown crime. 
This, indeed, was hard to bear. Even his wife refused to recognize him any longer; and he 
was left alone in his misery, scraping himself with a potsherd as he sat all day, and lay all 
night long, on the huge village ash heap, the refuse ground of all the community, bemoaning 
himself in the midst of this impenetrable affliction, the chiefest element in his grief being that 
he could not understand God. In fact, there is in this situation the undertone of that awful 
cry that, in after centuries, burst from the lips of the Son of God: “ My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me?” 

(c) The third affliction and trial was the completion of the one that has just been 
described. From a distance there came three eminent, wise, and pious men, all of Job’s own 
class and all his close friends. They had heard of Job’s first great trial, but as it was merely a 


1 Job xiii, 15. 




PSEUDO COMFORTERS— ANCIENT SEMITIC THEOLOGY. 


301 


matter affecting his property and his own immediate family, they had refrained from intruding 
on his trouble. Later on, perhaps after the lapse of some months, or even a year, as is most 
probable, this second stroke, under which Job’s body was so terribly afflicted, was reported to 
them. They then began to talk the matter over. They were truly sympathetic and deeply 
troubled. According to the accepted theology of that day, they at once concluded that these 
things were the judgment of God in retributive justice upon Job for some grievous sins — some 
dark and hidden hypocrisy it may be — and they set out to “ comfort him”; while at the same 
time they would gratify their curiosity. Perhaps something worse prompted them to study 
the fall of this great and good man, whose fame was throughout all the land. It does not seem 
charitable to suppose that any other motive than that of sympathy brought them to “ comfort ” 
Job; yet it is not altogether contrary to human nature that there was in them some curiosity to 
see how Job took these things, and what he would say for himself, and how this greatest man 
among them all would bear himself under circumstances which had reduced him to poverty, 
stripped him of his children, branded his body with a loathsome disease, and driven him an 
outcast from his kind. A great philosopher has said that there is that vein of depravity in 
every man that causes a little secret satisfaction in the misfortunes of even one’s best friend, 
especially if that friend be a little above us in rank and reputation. It is to be hoped that 
this is not universally true, yet it is to be feared that it is so far true that it behooves the best of 
men to guard themselves against the movement in their hearts of so subtle and devilish a mean¬ 
ness. It is certain that these three men, whatever their motive in coming to Job, turned out to 
be “ miserable comforters.” Their sympathy turned into reproof; their reproof into dark 
insinuations of wrongdoing ; their insinuation into the bitterest and most unjust accusations, for 
“ they spoke all manner of evil against him, falsely.” Assuming to be the champions of God’s 
justice, they thought it necessary to heap reproach upon Job in order to justify their theories of 
God’s dealings. Failing of any proof of crime on Job’s part which would explain his terrible 
sufferings, and being met from first to last with the most explicit denial on Job’s part of any 
iniquity in him, they were compelled to fall back on their “theory,” and, rather than yield a 
point there, they finally charged Job with being a desperate hypocrite, so hardened that, even 
under the mighty hand of God, he adhered to his falsehood and refused to confess his sins. 
Their anger at Job was no doubt heightened by the fact that, masters as they were in argument, 
and learned as they were in the theology of the day, Job out-argued them and overmastered 
them all through. A more splendid debate than that between Job and his friends is not on 
record in the annals of man. It is a debate the reading and study of which would enrich any 
debater. 

3. The Accepted Theology. In order to understand the whole argument, and to follow 
Job through this third and most terrible of his temptations, we must first get a clear idea of 
the accepted theology of that day among those who, like Job and his friends, were worshipers 
of the one only and true God. It was a theology based upon the traditional primitive revela¬ 
tion of God which had become more or less dim and corrupted—the speculations of honest 
hearts reasoning from their own religious nature and spiritual aspirations, and from the obser¬ 
vation of the course of things in the world, especially with reference to what seemed to them to 
be the moral government of the universe. This latter source was derived largely from the 
relative progress and end of good and bad men. Summed up, the theology of their day was 
this: That God was a God of exact and unvarying justice; that he rewarded good men with 
prosperity and earthly favor, while bad men received in this life the just recompense for their 
wickedness in suffering and misfortune; that all God’s dealings were in fact retributive. The 
problem under discussion, Job being the personal and concrete embodiment of it, was, “ human 
suffering in connection with God’s moral government.” Here was a man who had heretofore 
been greatly blessed and prospered. He had the reputation of being “just and upright,” which 


302 


ACCUSATION AND SELF-JUSTIFICATION. 


was based not only upon wliat was obvious in the life of Job, but upon the fact that he was 
so largely prosperous. But now this man, hitherto so famous for his righteousness and his great 
favor with God, was suddenly stripped of his prosperity, hurled down from his high pinnacle, 
bereft of his children, and given over to most loathsome bodily affliction. There could be but 
one conclusion : Job’s afflictions were retributive punishments from the hand of a just God who 
never failed to prosper the upright and to afflict the wicked. Job, therefore, must after all be a 
bad man, and this was the explanation of the matter. The arguments of the three friends were 
based upon these premises, and may be reduced to this formula: 

God is just who taketli vengeance. 

He afflicts those with whom he is angry. 

He is only angry with wicked men. 

He has grievously afflicted Job. 

Therefore, 

He must be angry with Job. 

Job must be a wicked man. 

On these strings of reasoning the three friends played continually. They brought their 
several arguments from three sources. The first of the three, Eliphaz the Temanite, argues 
from observation in support of the propositions above. “ Remember, I pray thee, whoever 
perished being innocent ? or where were the righteous cut off? Even as I have seen, they that 
plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.” 1 Then comes Bildad the Shuhite, with the 
same argument. God is just. He does not pervert justice. Your children have been swept 
away because of wickedness; and your other misfortunes are to be explained on the same 
ground. Better acknowledge your sin, and then God will “ awake for thee, and make the habi¬ 
tation of thy righteousness prosperous.” He enforces this argument by an appeal to tradition. 
“ Inquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers. 

. . . Shall not they teach thee, and tell thee, and utter words out of their hearts?” 2 

Then comes Zophar the Naamathite, and takes up much the same argument, only he appeals to 
the law: “ Know, therefore, that God exacteth from thee less than thine iniquity deserveth.” 3 
Job met all these arguments as best he could, only he always stoutly denied that there was any 
wickedness in his life with which to explain his afflictions on the theory of retributive justice. 
He was bewildered with the mystery of God’s dealings with him, for he held the same theology 
as his friends. It was this confusion of reason in respect to the God whom he loved and 
worshiped, and who seemed to be contradicting himself and acting unjustly by Job, that gave 
him the bitterest suffering. 

4. Job’s Dilemma. Job was, indeed, in a dreadful dilemma. He knew and held fast to 
the truth that God was just. He knew that he was not a bad man; that the wickedness 
attributed to him by his friends was a false accusation. He had a good conscience toward 
God, and he could no more deny his good conscience than he could the justice of God. He 
could not, therefore, reconcile God’s dealings with him according to the theory which he also 
held, that God only afflicted retributively. He must even give up his belief in the integrity of 
God’s justice or deny the conscious integrity of his own life. It seems never to have occurred 
to him that his and their theory of the moral government of God might be wrong, and that 
affliction did not always imply God’s anger and the wickedness of the afflicted one. To do 
either the one or the other was to plunge himself into moral anarchy. All through the 
contention Job upheld these two facts, nor could he see his way out of the terrible dilemmas 
they, with his suffering, made for him. “ God is just; I am not wicked ; and yet I am afflicted, 
and in so grievous a manner and so clearly from heaven that I cannot lay it to any hand but 
God’s.” He will not say God is unjust; he will not admit that he is wicked because he knows 


1 Job iv, 7, 8. 


2 Job viii, 8,10. 


3 Job xi, 6. 




THE FOUNTAIN OF JOB. 















304 


MENTAL PERPLEXITY AND DISTRESS. 


to the contrary. Yet he is afflicted. Here are his afflictions standing between the justice of 
God and his own righteousness. How to explain this mystery was the problem. In vain he 
called upon God, but got no answer. In vain, he sought God for an explanation, but God was 
afar off and he could not find him. To lose faith either in God or his own integrity was alike 
maddening to him; and out of this madness Job uttered many rash, almost blasphemous, 
things. He at times seemed on the point of justifying the Devil by “ cursing God.” In his 
misery he turned to his friends, but they only heaped reproach upon him. From them he 
turned to God only to be met with silence. Thus the wretched man, confused in mind, torn 
and distracted in heart, first fled from God to man for sympathy, and then back again from the 
hard and manifest ignorance and dogmatism of men who would logically make him a trans¬ 
gressor, when he knew, as a matter of fact, he was not, to God, passionately calling upon him to 
rise up out of his silence and come near from his distance and vindicate both his own action in 
afflicting him without a cause and, at the same time, vindicate his (Job’s) own righteousness 
from the foul and scandalous aspersions of his three friends. He vainly longed to die. He 
almost gave up the whole matter to take refuge in the wild anarchy of thought which seemed to 
surround him, and yet he so profoundly believed in God that, though God should slay him, 
even if his integrity and the mystery of his dealings were never discovered, he would still trust 
in him. In the celebrated nineteenth chapter we find him crouching at the feet of his friends, 
who were so bitterly wronging him, passionately affirming his faith in a divine Redeemer who 
would in the end vindicate him; if not in this world then in another. “ I know that my 
Redeemer liveth.” Here we have a dawning of that better hope and clearer understanding, 
which has come so fully to us, of life and immortality brought to light by the Gospel. Job saw 
it only “ as in a glass, darkly,” and in his deepest extremity it comforted him. His friends 
maddened him by their arguments, the fallacy of which he could not utterly expose but which 
at the same time he felt. They were justifying God, even as Job would and did justify him; 
only their defense of God made it necessary for them to accuse Job of having committed 
heinous sins, of which he knew he had never been guilty. But why had God so afflicted him ? 
why did he not explain the ground on which these afflictions were administered ? why did he 
not answer his cry for light ? why did he not vindicate him before these false accusers ? why 
did he keep at a distance from him, in the hour of his bitterest trouble and need ? These were 
the elements in the confusion that filled Job’s soul. 

5. Job’s Akgument and Faith. Through thirty chapters the battle raged between Job 
and his “miserable comforters,” between his bewildered soul and the darkness in which God 
was hiding himself. Job often broke off from arguing with his friends, as if in his deeper 
agony he had totally forgotten them, and flung himself at God’s feet and cried out in the 
bitterness of his heart for God. His soul thirsted for God — yea, for the living God — but he 
could not find him. Throughout the whole argument the three friends contended for their 
dogmatic creed — that rewards and punishments were meted out in this world — that sin 
brought with it in this life its terrible consequences, and that virtue was sure to be vindicated 
in a corresponding compensation of blessing. Because Job was so sorely afflicted, they argued 
over and over again, he must be a great sinner, guilty of some unparalleled wickedness which 
he was concealing from their knowledge. It is true, they could point to no sin of which he 
was guilty, but they argued there must be sin or there could not be such affliction, God being 
just. To admit that such affliction could be found in a good man’s life would argue the injus¬ 
tice of God — a proposition which neither Job nor his friends would admit. The difference 
between Job’s position and theirs was that, while Job stoutly upheld the absolute justice of God, 
he as stoutly denied iniquity in his life and maintained his own integrity. These two positions, 
with his unparalleled afflictions between, seemed inconsistent with each other. The friends 
seized on this inconsistency and assailed Job with arguments drawn from a commonly held 


A SUBLIME FAITH. 


305 


theology, and reinforced those arguments, as we have seen, from observation, tradition, and law. 
Job, on the other hand, still maintaining his integrity, admitted that in the present case God 
was, for some inexplicable reason, his “ adversary,” but not, he contended, from any wicked¬ 
ness in him. The friends replied that such a position was insulting to God and blasphemous in 
Job, and that his stubbornness in maintaining his integrity was only an aggravation of his sin. 
In the course of the argument, which must have lasted over many days, we notice that the 
friends intrench themselves more and more behind dogma, steadily lose their calmness, and 
grow bitter, unjust, and vindictive toward Job. Foiled in their efforts to convince Job of sin 
and bring him to their views of the matter, they assail him cruelly, and seem more intent at 
last on maintaining their creed than on justifying God. This is ever the case with mere 
dogmatists. On the other hand, Job, still overwhelmed with his afflictions, utterly unable to 
comprehend them, confident of his integrity (which is the only thing he absolutely knows), 
and equally confident of the ultimate justice of God, draws nearer and nearer to God; 
continues his appeals to him for vindication and to justification of his own dealings with him. 
This is one of the most remarkable features in Job’s argument. He has such an uncompro¬ 
mising conviction of the justice of God that he appeals to God, against God, in respect of the 
wrongs done to him. In all his arguments and outcries his face is steadily toward God and his 
appeal directed to God. He turns his back, with considerable contempt and disgust, upon his 
“ miserable comforters,” and will listen to no one else, argue no longer, and look nowhere else 
but to God for vindication. This is sublime faith, even though there be in it, apparently, a 
kind of impertinent irreverence. “ My friends scorn me: but mine eye poureth out tears to 
God.” 1 He is very bold in his argument. “ Thou knowest that I am not wicked; and there 
is none that can deliver out of thine hand.” 2 “ Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him : 
but I will maintain mine own ways before him. He also shall be my salvation: for an hypo¬ 
crite shall not come before him.” 3 A conscious sinner would not dare approach into God’s 
presence with such an argument; but Job longs for nothing so much as for the privilege of 
facing God and requiring of him an explanation and justification of his ways with him. If 
God be just and he be innocent, then God must vindicate him. This he constantly argues, 
entreats, and demands. 

Another thing is apparent in the course of the whole argument, and that is, that Job is 
gradually changing his theological views, and reaching conclusions from the premises of his own 
suffering, which were not in his creed at the beginning. He is no longer sure that suffering is 
the necessary consequence of sinning. How could he hold fast by that old view while he was 
still conscious that there was no iniquity in him and that God was still and always perfectly 
just — that is, no such iniquity as that attributed to him by his friends and inferred from his 
sufferings ? Then, again, he is beginning to perceive that the sphere of God’s providence, the 
working of his ways, are wider than his own individual case, and are not limited to this 
world. He suggests that God let him die and hide him in the grave (sheol) until he be ready 
to vindicate him and bring forth his righteousness. He promises to rest quietly in that 
middle world, until God’s time shall come, and then at his first call he will respond to the 
summons. 4 God has more than one world in which to make his ways plain, his promises good, 
and his unfailing justice manifest. The new and open vision of a future life, and the arbitration 
of human affairs beyond the confines of this life, rises to its culminating point in the nineteenth 
chapter (before referred to) where he bursts out with that magnificent declaration of his new 
creed: “I know that my Redeemer [my Kinsman and Avenger] liveth; .... and 
though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Job had 
reached that state both of body and mind when he despaired of the recovery of one, and the 
peace of the other, in an earthly vindication, and so longed for death, but not as once he had 


1 Job xvi, 20. 


3 Job x, 7. 


3 Job xiii, 15-17. 


4 Job xiv, 13-17. 



306 


DESPONDENT YET TRUSTING. 


done in bitterness, wishing he had never been born, or that death might annihilate him. He 
now wished that he might die and get into the presence of that Redeemer whom he was sure 
would vindicate him. He had nothing more to live for. His body was being eaten to the bone 
with the foul and leprous sores which covered him; his friends had turned from him; he was 
the object of their bitter injustice; his wife had forsaken him; and he had become the object 
of universal loathing and foulest suspicions. Not only was he charged with unknown and 
fancied crimes, but because he maintained integrity he was pronounced a monumental hypocrite 
and even a blasphemer, since he appealed to God for vindication, and charged the Almighty 
with visiting these afflictions upon him without due cause. He was rapidly growing quiet with 
the increasing conviction that in another world he would be fully vindicated. He had lost all 
hope for this one. From the end of the first colloquy Job discerns a faint ray of hope in the 
possibility of an immortality of future life, in which things which seem most wrong will turn 
out to have been most right. If a tree die it may live again. That is, a new tree will shoot up 
out of the old roots at the scent of water; 1 so it may be with a man. At the end of the second 
colloquy this hope of immortality rises into full-orbed splendor, for there he sees and confesses 
that Redeemer whom he knows to be alive, and whom he shall see out of his mortal flesh, and 
who will both vindicate him from the false accusations of his friends and avenge him of the 
wrongs he has suffered. 

In the twenty-second chapter, the second one in the last colloquy, we see the Temanite 
throwing his last spear, firing his last arrow. He makes one more attack, and then, like a 
cuttle-fish, retires amid a cloud of accusation which he throws over Job. In vain had his 
friends sought to convict Job of crime, or point out even one sin against righteousness which 
Job had committed. Yet their theory of sin and punishment required that sin be found in Job. 
“According to our theory you ought to be a sinner. We cannot change our theory. Therefore, 
you are a sinner. And since your afflictions are unparalleled, you must be an unparalleled 
sinner.” Thus they reasoned; thus, practically, Eliphaz spoke. They had been unable to 
pierce Job’s armor of integrity by all the arts of argument and cunning insinuation; therefore, 
the last desperate charge of the Temanite. Without a scrap of evidence, he opens his batteries 
and charges Job with every heinous sin, every namable iniquity of which the worst wretch 
could be guilty; and then calls upon him to repent of these crimes which he had not committed, 
turn to God and confess his sins, and takes upon himself to promise that God will forgive him, 
and, if he return to righteousness, will restore to him prosperity. Here the Temanite uses a 
bribe, the very argument the devil has used, when disputing before God the sincerity of Job’s 
righteousness. 2 Job answers, indeed, but he does not attempt to rebut these arguments, or 
further refute the calumnies of his friends. He has practically turned away from man. The 
whole argument has been more than threshed out; and he is more and more disposed to turn 
the whole matter over to God for solution. From the beginning, Job, like a child to its 
mother, creeps closer and closer to God—to the hand that chastises. Friendless in this world, 
weary of life, overwhelmed with afflictions which seem to him to have come upon him without 
cause, distressed beyond measure because he cannot reconcile God’s dealings with him with 
what he ever firmly believes to be his unchanging character — his goodness and justice — he 
yet longs for God and lays himself at his feet, and casts all his care and trouble upon him. 
He is not afraid of God, though he cannot understand his ways. “ Though he slay me, yet 
will I trust in him.” 

We now reach the conclusion of this magnificent historic poem. The controversy between 
Job and his friends came to a natural end, both for the reason that they had exhausted every 
argument they could think of, and failed to move Job from his stubborn double position. “ I 
have not sinned; and God is just.” Job was quite sure of his own integrity, and thoroughly 


Job xiv, 7. 


2 Job xxii, 23-30. 



SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT. 


307 


loyal to his conscience. He was also absolutely sure of God’s integrity. His anguish was 
between these two positions. The friends were sure of their theory and, therefore, could do 
naught else than infer Job’s guilt. The difference between their position and Job’s was that 
Job certainly knew his integrity, and they only inferred his guilt. Throughout the whole 
course of the debate the friends grew more haughty> hard, bitter, and unfeeling toward Job, 
while he grew steadily more quiet, gentle, and trustful. Zophar, the most narrow-minded 
of the three friends, dropped out of the debate altogether, and Eliphaz, the wisest and ablest 
of the three, resorted at last, with an utter loss of temper, to those open and despicable 
charges against Job of which we have spoken and for which he had not the slightest 
proof. It never occurred to him that his theory of God and his dealings with men might be 
altogether wrong. On the other hand, Job, starting with the same theology as that held by his 
friends, yet knowing that, in his case, the theory did not hold good, steadily drew nearer to 
God, accusing him at times of injustice, even pitting his own righteousness against God’s 
dealings, and passionately calling on God to vindicate himself, thus venturing even to judge 
God; yet all the time flinging himself on God, and proclaiming his entire justice, although 
he could not understand it. There is, in spite of these outbreaks of passion, a sublime 
reverence in his attitude toward God. His own sufferings at times seemed much less to him 
than his trouble about God. His afflictions were not so much a reproach to him as to God, for 
they laid God seemingly under a charge of injustice from which Job could not, except by a 
blind faith, vindicate him. This conflict drove Job to suspect the correctness of his theology — 
the theology of the time, which both he and his friends held. He came to suspect that God 
had other modes of procedure than those upon which all their theories were based. Thus, 
afflictions not only broadened his mind and enlarged his heart, but also broadened his theology. 

We now come to a new act in the drama. Elihu appears, and takes part in the contro¬ 
versy. He was a younger man than either of the four, and had, during the controversy, kept 
silence, through that modesty which characterizes the youth of the oriental countries. It 
seems that during the long debate between Job and his friends, a large company of wise and 
thoughtful men had gathered about the disputants, deeply interested in the arguments advanced 
by them in respect of the profound questions under discussion. To these as well as to Job does 
Elihu address his arguments. There is this peculiarity about Elihu’s address, apart from its 
great eloquence and its calm philosophical and discriminating character: he practically tells us 
that he is speaking not only his own convictions on the matter, but practically the truths as he 
had received them from the Spirit of God. The inspiration he claims for them is of that sort 
which is suggested by the psalmist when he tells us that the “ secret of the Lord is with them 
that fear him.” It is impossible not to be struck with the sincerity and candid fairness of 
Elihu in his discourses—his anxiety not to wound Job but to convince him and lead him to 
God in a way at once humble and uplifting, His kindness of manner and sincere solicitude 
for Job are in striking contrast with the hardness and unbending bitterness of the three friends. 
That Elihu contributes very materially to the wealth of the poem, and advances and enlarges 
the whole character of it, there is absolutely no doubt. We can but summarize his teaching. 

He opens his discourse with an apology for his youth, but denies that wisdom must 
necessarily be confined to age; and maintains by implication that true wisdom comes from the 
Spirit of God and, therefore, may come to a young man even as to one of maturer years, 
especially if it has been sought in connection with a godly walk with God. He at once 
condemns Job for his over-assertion of sinlessness, and for his rash and hasty judgment of God 
and his ways. He -condemns the friends because, with all their fierce argumentation, they had 
failed utterly to answer Job. Then, turning to Job, he points out that he had erred greatly in 
many of his assertions in regard to God’s dealing with men and with himself. Job had 
complained not only that God had deserted him, and so, by implication, men in general when 


308 


THE DISCOURSE OF ELIHU. 


they were in trouble, but that he did not in any way communicate with man. To this Eliliu 
replies that God does speak to man. By dreams, afflictions, experience, and even by 
messengers, “angels” or teachers, such as he himself was — that is, by prophets, holy men 
moved to speak by the Holy Ghost. And here he intimates that it is not true that God’s 
afflictions are always in anger; indeed, he maintains that they are always in love; that, even 
when they are sent on account of sins done, the purpose of God is still one of love and for 
salvation and not destruction. He refutes Job’s charge against God that he is indifferent to the 
moral conduct of men, and maintains that he is always and exactly just; that he has no 
motive for being otherwise than just. He had made man of his own free will; he had main¬ 
tained him in life and supplied him with breath. Why should God have done this if he had 
not loved man for himself. Moreover, man’s sins cannot hurt God, nor can his virtues enrich 
him. God has nothing either to revenge himself for or to reward man for. Nevertheless, he is 
pleased with man’s virtue, and grieves over his vice, but this more for man’s sake than for his 
own. Besides all this, it is still true (although Job had denied it), that a man’s virtue does in 
the long run bring him happiness, while his. vice does in the long run bring him to misery. 
It is, therefore, profitable to be godly, and it is disastrous to follow after wickedness. God does 
strike down the wicked and he does vindicate the righteous. Not to administer the moral 
government of the universe on principles of absolute justice would be to bring about a state of 
anarchy that would end in the destruction of all worlds — moral as well as physical. If he 
sends afflictions upon the righteous, they are not punitive but corrective. He is always just, 
kind, and redemptive in his dealings with men, and especially so with those men who are 
following after righteousness. Afflictions are to teach and purge men. Where there is no 
open sin, as there was not in Job’s case, there was yet latent sin, or sin of nature, and perhaps 
unconscious and unintentional sins. These have to be brought to light and purged away. 
Afflictions are God’s ministers for this work; in kindness and not in wrath he discovers man to 
himself. God delivers men out of affliction by affliction. Afflictions are the means of revela¬ 
tion both of the man to himself and of God; for they at once move a man to self-examination 
and at the same time drive him to God for inquiry and comfort. Moreover, if afflictions 
deprive us of the coarser and more outside comforts and blessings of life, they reveal to us and 
develop in us a finer and purer joy which, but for afflictions, would have remained unknown, 
and for which we would have had no capacity. Elihu also utterly denies Job’s charge against 
God that he does not hear prayer, will not answer man’s cry, and hides himself. If God 
does not answer the cry of man at once, it is far more likely that man has asked amiss, in 
passion or anger, or out of a mere impulse springing from immediate suffering or discomfort, 
or even out of pride, than that God has kept silence through indifference. Man is a greater 
being than a brute or a bird. If God hears the cry of the raven, the lowing of the cattle, and 
the roar of the young lion, it is because they know no better than to cry when they are 
hungry and thirsty; but man knows more than this, and to demand that God shall deliver 
him out of every situation of discomfort at the very moment is to put himself on the level 
with beasts and birds. Again, God hears and delays to answer because to answer immedi¬ 
ately in many cases would be to condemn man instead of saving him. Suppose he had 
appeared at once in answer to Job’s furious and passionate challenge for vindication; he would 
have had to expose the many imperfections of which Job was unconscious, and present him 
in a character which would have been worse to bear than the slanderous inferences put upon 
him by his friends. Moreover, to have delivered him immediately from his afflictions would 
have been to deprive him of their ministry. God’s great power is of his heart, rather than of 
his arm. “ He is mighty by strength of heart.” Therefore, the truth is, that all God does is 
done from a motive of love. He is always just, and kind, and redemptive. “ He exalteth by 
his power.” That is, he uses his power to exalt, not to destroy men. If it ever turns out the 


LESSONS FROM THE BOOK OF JOB. 


309 


other way, it is because men willfully sin against light ancl the power of love, choosing to keep 
in with sin which always destroys, rather than to be led in the ways of righteousness which 
always exalt and save. Elihu closes his discourses with a description of a magnificent storm 
which looks so threatening and destructive, but which, upon the whole, is beneficent, and brings 
out the whole earth in brighter beauty afterward — “The clear shining after rain,” and the 
golden glory of the light after the storm has passed. So it shall be with the man who emerges 
out of a storm ot afflictions. We cannot understand all the mysteries of nature; so neither can 
we understand all the mysteries of the workings of God’s moral and providential government. 
But we can understand enough to know that the one is as beneficent as the other. Therefore, 
let us wait and trust on. “The just shall live by faith;” and he that putteth his trust in God 
shall never be confounded, but “ kept in perfect peace.” 

After Elihu’s discourse God speaks to Job out of the tempest. The discourse explains 
no mysteries, solves no problems. But that God should speak to him at all is the one 
thing that humbles Job- and makes him ashamed. It is not argument or philosophical 
unfolding of theological discourse that convinces the spirit of man, either by humbling or 
exalting him; it is the spiritual vision of God, in the light of which we get a true vision 
of ourselves. When Job saw God and heard him speak to him, then he fell on his face and 
cried out: “ I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee. 
Wherefore, I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” If we had the vision of God, we 
should have the same estimate of ourselves. After this God forgives Job his sins, and restores 
to him his prosperity and position. Moreover, he rebukes his censorious and unjust friends, 
and commands them to seek the benefits of Job’s intercession, the offering of an atonement 
for them. 

The lessons to be derived from the Book of Job, useful for all ages, are so many that it 
is impossible to enumerate them all or the half of them; but a few may not be amiss: 

1. A refutation of the idea suggested by Satan that there is no pure righteousness in the 
world ; that all religion is selfish ; that man only serves God for gain. 

2. A refutation of the implication by Satan that God is incapable of awakening pure and 
true love in the heart of man. Therefore, the trials which Job underwent to demonstrate the 
falseness of Satan’s accusation, both of God and man respectively. 

3. That true religion is the fruit of faith and not of sight. That a really righteous man 
serves God, not because he understands all his ways, but because he believes in him and trusts 
in him, even though he should slay him. That the heart goes out to God and loves him, not 
for things received at his hand but for himself. 

4. That God’s afflictions are never purely punitive. That, on the other hand, they are 
corrective, and for the purpose of education and discipline. 

5. That, in the long run, it is profitable to the soul, as well as to the material interests of 
men, to live righteous lives; and disastrous to live wickedly. 

6. That, in the meantime, the wicked often seem to be prospered, while the righteous 
are forsaken; nevertheless, God will vindicate the righteous and overthrow the wicked. If full 
and exact justice is not seen altogether in this world, everything will be righted in the next, 
which is the necessary complement to this one. 

7. That morality or human righteousness is not enough to satisfy the spiritual and ethical 
nature of man. He needs God, and will never be satisfied till he “ come before him.” 

8. That the pursuit of righteousness will not in itself lead a man to a true and full 
knowledge of God. Revelation is necessary to complete our knowledge. 

9. Our knowledge of God comes to us in three ways. By meditation and philosophical 
inquiry; by observation or the study of nature and man; and by revelation, which is a com¬ 
munication to man, out and down from God to us by his Spirit, sometimes directly through 


310 


DEALINGS OF GOD WITH MAN. 


dreams, or through deep convictions which amount to certainties; by experience as in afflic¬ 
tions; and by holy men as they are taught by the Spirit. 

10. That God is not indifferent to our suffering or need when he does not immediately 
answer our prayers. 

11. That he uses his great power for salvation and not destruction. 

12. That the greatness of his power is in his love and not in his mere might. 

13. That God is always just, kind, and redemptive, in his ways with us, always seeking 
our highest good. That to win us to himself to share with him the fullness and glory of his 
eternal being is the design and end of our creation, preservation, and all his providences. 

14. That God has two worlds in which to make good all his purposes and promises. 
What we miss in this one, we shall find in the other. 

15. That out of every evil God brings some good; and that he makes the wrath of man 
to praise him, and the remainder he restraineth. 

16. That Satan is finally defeated and drops out of the drama of our lives — is simply 
lost sight of and ignored. 

17. That God takes account of our sins, and that while we may not be conscious of sins 
we are nevertheless surely sinful. 

18. That it is only a spiritual vision of God that will enable us to see ourselves as we are. 

19. That it is our duty and ought to be our privilege to “ wait patiently on the Lord,” 
whose thoughts for us are never evil, but always good, and who will surely bring our true and 
right desires to pass. 

20. The inviolability of conscience. We must stand by our own conscience; but not 
against God, who is greater than our conscience ; also remembering that the work of the 
conscience is to a large degree dependent upon our knowledge both of God and ourselves. 
Conscience cannot, therefore, be the final arbiter of moral questions. 

21. In all our difficulties and afflictions, the only safe way is to keep our faces toward God 
and argue everything out with him as it were face to face. 


CHAPTER V. 

THE TRANSITION TO CEREMONIAL. 

F ROM Abraham to Moses may be called the middle period of the Hebrew development. In 
Abraham’s day there was no formal priesthood and no elaborate ritual. He was,, as we 
have already seen, the priest of his own family. The ceremonial consisted in a simple sacrifice 
in connection with which sin was confessed and atonement for sin was typified. There is little 
doubt but that Abraham, who is said to have “ seen Christ’s day,” had some comprehension of 
the great Atonement, though he could not have fully understood it. The tragic act in which he 
offered up his only son Isaac — that son who came to him out of the course of nature, and in 
fulfillment of the promise of the Almighty (the miracle-working God), and for whom a substi¬ 
tute was provided at the last moment — must have suggested to him- something wonderful 
in connection with Christ (whose “day he saw”); even as the saving of Isaac, by the interposi¬ 
tion of God after the knife was lifted to slay him and he was to his father as already dead, was 
to him as a resurrection from the dead. 1 

The same simple forms of worship which characterized the house of Abraham and Job, 
and no doubt other Semites of their day, continued in the succeeding generation and were found 


1 Hebrews xi, 19. 





MARAH. 





















312 


INSTITUTION OF CEREMONIAL WORSHIP. 


in the family of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, the father of the twelve patriarchs, and the 
founder of the Hebrew people. When the children of Jacob, or Israel, went down into Egypt, 
in the days of Joseph’s ascendancy, they, without doubt, carried with them their simple worship 
of the one only and true God. Subsequently, after the rise of the Pharaoh who knew not 
Joseph and who enslaved the Hebrews, we have reason to fear that their simple and pure 
worship was greatly contaminated by contact with the Egyptian or Hamitic religion, if not 
entirely superseded by it. 1 At the time of the Exodus, and especially in connection with the 
inauguration of the Passover feast, 2 the worship of the true God was revived in that ceremonial, 
which was the bridge by which they returned from Egyptian idolatry to the simple cult of the 
Semitic worship. Moses, during his controversy with Pharaoh, announced to him that by 
the command of God the children of Israel must go into the wilderness to hold a feast unto 
Jehovah. It was probable that in this command there was the intimation that a true cult or 
ritual would be inaugurated, about which the Israelites or Hebrews would develop their 
national life. That Moses was ignorant of what this ceremonial worship would be is clear from 
his reply to Pharaoh: “We know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we come 
thither.” 3 The problem before him was a most serious one. “God is a Spirit: and they that 
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” And yet in that age and with the 
limited knowledge of God which the people had, it was more necessary for them than for us 
that there should be a ceremonial more or less elaborate—a ceremonial which would at once 
present some outward symbol of God and at the same time keep the truth of his invisible and 
spiritual personality — separate and apart from all material and seen things—always before 
them. More than that, the people were to be organized as a nation and their religious cult 
must take on such forms as would have significance in respect to everything which entered into 
national life; for in that age religion was never separable from the commonwealth, and, in fact, 
was rather a state or national affair than a personal matter. Moses knew well that the material¬ 
istic worship of Egypt, with all the rites and ceremonies of that cult, would not do, and, indeed, 
must be wholly abandoned; but how to constitute a ritual apart from all known forms, and, 
we may even say, apart from some most natural forms which enter into worship either true or. 
false, was surely a difficult problem. Clearly, God himself must reveal the essential underlying 
principles and give direction as to the ritual. Moses must, then, wait upon the Lord and be 
guided by whatever revelation might come. For three months the children of Israel continued 
in the desert, learning primary lessons of dependence upon God, especially as to temporal 
providences. They were in a wilderness without food or water, a vast host of some millions 
of men, women, and children, with flocks and herds, besides camp equipage and all the spoil 
they had brought out of Egypt. During this time God fed them from heaven, and gave them 
drink from the smitten rock. He also taught them how he would fight for them, defend them, 
and give them victory over their enemies. All this experience was most necessary to bring 
them to understand and know that their God was not as the gods of the heathen or of Egypt— 
that he was a real God, ever present with them, to be reverenced, feared, and obeyed. It was 
during this time of instruction and discipline that that most important first principle of ethical 
teaching was brought home to them. God must be obeyed. Swift punishment followed upon 
disobedience, while obedience was followed by God’s good pleasure. Sometimes the punish¬ 
ment was as terrible as it was swift, because they could only be taught in that way. 4 Not 
only prosperity and adversity, but life and death hang upon our obedience to God. This is 
not the highest truth in revelation, but it is the initial truth in religion. 5 

After the bitter but triumphant experience at Rephidim, 6 Moses erected an altar upon 
which, presumably, he offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving to Jehovah and called “ the name of 

1 Joshua xxiv, 14-23. 2 Exodus xii. - 3 Exodus x, 26. * Leviticus, x, 2. 

6 See Exodus xvi-xviii. 6 Exodus xvii, 8-13. 






JETHRO AND MOSES — REVELATION ON SINAI 


313 


it Jeliovali-iiissi,” that is “The Lord my Banner,” or “The Captain of my Salvation,” or my 
“ Deliverer.” 1 This act of worship was no doubt the simple old worship of Abraham, Job, and 
other early Semite patriarchs. But it showed a distinct advance in knowledge of God. Then 
came Jethro, the priest of Midian, the father-in-law of Moses, who brought with him Moses’ 
wife and two sons. Jethro was no doubt a God-fearing man, of the order of “truth seekers” 
found in all the ages, who, upon admitting Moses into his family forty years before, had received 
from him the knowledge of the true God, which knowledge was now confirmed upon the 
occasion of this visit to Moses, from whom he heard all the things which God had done for 
Israel. Jethro was not only convinced, but, we should say in the truest sense, converted; 
upon which he confessed God in the burnt offering (the offering of consecration) which he 
offered unto the Lord. His conversion was celebrated by a kind of communion service, for 
“Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before 
God.” 2 These and similar simple acts of worship were maintained during this early part of the 
Wilderness sojourn. 

The Pillar of the Cloud, the visible symbol of God’s presence, was always present in the 
camp, but no revelation touching ritual service had up to this time been given. Jethro 
persuaded Moses of the wisdom of organizing the children of Israel into a civil community, 
over which “ able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness,” were to rule, and 
especially to judge between them in respect of mutual rights under the commandments and 
statutes of the Lord as they had been revealed to Moses up to that time. 3 We see in all this 
the beginnings of national life, and the increasing and pressing necessity for some more perma¬ 
nent and comprehensive religious ritual. Here, then, at the foot of Sinai, they camped, after 
the victory over Amalek and the civil arrangements above spoken of had been made. The 
Lord began to speak to Moses definitely and in detail respecting his purposes concerning Israel, 
and gave to him there in the mountain, in outline at least, the civil and ceremonial laws of the 
new commonwealth. The characteristic features of this revelation were : (1) The graciousness 
of all God’s purposes, and (2) The symbolic character of the revelation and ritual. 4 The 
familiar twentieth chapter contains a record of the “Ten Words,” or, as we know them more 
familiarly, the Ten Commandments, and the beginning of the symbolism contained in the altar 
to be thereafter used in worship. 5 The following chapters contain a great variety of laws and 
regulations for the future government of Israel. 6 From the twenty-fifth to the thirty-first, 
inclusive, we have minute and detailed instructions for the building of the tabernacle, with all 
its furniture; also directions for the setting apart of Aaron and his sons for the priesthood, 
with a description of their clothing, including the wonderful Urim and Thummim, and the 
nature of the service they should render. 


’Exodus xvii, 15, 16. 2 Exodus xviii, 12. 

4 Exodus xix, 4-6, 18, 19, with Galatians iv, 24. 


3 Exodus xviii, 21, 22. 
5 Exodus xx, 24-26. 


6 Exodus xxi-xxiv. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE LAW AND THE TABERNACLE. 


T HESE remarkable Words or Commandments were thrice given. Once to Moses orally, 
and twice again to Moses written or engraved on tables, or rather tablets, of stone. 1 
This first pair of tablets were broken by Moses on his descent from the mountain, in his 
indignation at the people’s apostasy in the matter of the golden calf. 2 The breaking of these 
tables of the Law would indicate that the people had now come under a broken law, and were 
henceforth living under a covenant broken on their part, though not annulled; which would 
involve them in the constant necessity of grace ministered, not through broken law, but 
through sacrifice and intercession. The tables were renewed and again given to Moses, in 
connection with a most glorious revelation of the person and grace of Jehovah. 3 The rest of 
the Book of Exodus is taken up with a detailed account of the construction of the tabernacle, 
and the institution of a priesthood “ according to the pattern which Moses had received in the 
mount.” 

Of these wonderful Ten Words it is impossible for us to speak adequately. They are the 
most outstanding statement of righteousness the world has ever had. The centuries which 
have passed since, with all the advance of knowledge and culture, have never been able to 
improve or amend them, either by way of addition or subtraction. These words were most 
wonderfully summed up by our Lord himself in one of his answers to a scribe who questioned 
him concerning them: “ Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love 
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all 
thy strength: this is the first commandment.. And the second is like, namely, this: Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” 4 
To account for this compendium of righteousness and religion apart from revelation is a hope¬ 
less task for any who may undertake it. Could it have originated with Moses in the Wilder¬ 
ness ? This would be to ascribe to him an ethical genius and an intellectual mastery beyond 
that which is human, and as much out of the sequence of human nature as is the explanation of 
their origin contained in the book. Moses certainly did not learn these Words from the priests 
of Egypt, for they had no conception of such a law of righteousness, and especially had they no 
conception of God or of religion, whose first word is love. They imply that the God who gives 
such a command must himself be the God of Love; and that all religion must be its expres¬ 
sion. Behold! here, indeed, is a revelation worthy of the highest conception of God and 
religion. These words were spoken to Moses by God, and are forevermore, as they have been 
all down the ages, the pillar and ground of religious truth. They do not, indeed, contain the 
whole truth of God. They have been called a transcript of the divine mind; but that is not 
an accurate statement. There is much more in the mind of God than is revealed in these Ten 
Words. “ For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” The 
Ten Words, then, are more properly defined as being the transcript of the divine mind as to 
what man ought to be. They are the standard of righteousness, and so become the revealer of 
sin in man when he measures himself by them, “ for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” 5 
Farther on we shall see how even this law, so perfect and so inexorable in its demand of right¬ 
eousness, becomes the very foundation and life of that mercy of God which is freely adminis¬ 
tered to sinful man from off the mercy seat. For when the law is met by the great atonement 
it will be seen that God is “ faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” 6 

1 Exodus xx, 2-17, xxxi, 18, xxxii, 16. 2 Exodus xxxii, 19. 3 Exodus xxxiv, 4-9. 4 Mark xii, 29-31. 

5 Romans iii, 20. 6 1. John i, 9. 

314 





THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. 


315 


The law was engraved on two tables, or tablets, of stone. This is usually taken as sym¬ 
bolic of the fact that religion or righteousness has to do with both heaven and earth, with God 
and man. The number of the commandments, ten, is not without significance, as throughout 
the Bible, as is still true in all oriental countries, the number ten symbolized perfection or 
completeness. There is also significance in the division of the commandments into two sets of 
five each. Five being a symbol of imperfection shows that to keep either table to the exclu¬ 
sion of the other would be ethically imperfect. “ The Lord thy God,” and “ thy neighbor as 
thyself” must be considered together. The division of the ten commandments into two sets 
of five each is the common way of looking at them. Five were engraved on either of the two 
tablets, the first five referring to God, and the second five referring to obligations from man to 
man. The fifth commandment, which enjoins obedience from children to their parents, has by 



MOSES RECEIVING THE TABLETS. 


many been supposed to belong more properly to the group which enjoins obligation upon man 
to his fellow man, but to the Jewish mind obedience to parents was an act of piety rather than 
the discharge of mutual obligation. It, therefore, takes its place with the four preceding com¬ 
mandments having reference to piety. A disobedient child, either son or daughter, could in no 
case be considered a pious person, even in respect of the claims of God. It ought also to be 
observed that all the commandments, with the possible exception of the fourth, which refers 
to the sabbath, are grounded not on an arbitrary will of God but in the very moral constitution 
of man. The worship prescribed toward God conforms with the religious instincts of man; so 
does the piety due to parents, so do all the obligations toward our neighbor conform to our own 
inherent sense of right. Even the rest prescribed upon the seventh day is found to be in 
harmony with the best moral, spiritual, and physical conditions of life, though, in the nature 
of the case, the sabbath observance is not so obviously a duty as are the others. Whether 









CONSTRUCTION OF THE TABERNACLE. 


316 

we look up to the heavens or abroad upon the earth, whether we consider our duty to God or 
our obligations to our fellow men, we cannot possibly get on religiously, ethically, or even 
civilly, without the law given on Sinai. If we consider this law as the work of man, how bold 
was that man who assumed to utter a law at once worthy of God and comprehensive of all the 
rights of man! And yet how perfect is this law, in both these respects! Who will add to it 
and who will take from it, by pointing out deficiencies or superfluities ? 

Hitherto the children of Israel had worshiped under the blue sky. Their temple compre¬ 
hended all space. Now God, having given them his law, by which their relations to him and 
to their neighbors are clearly defined, calls upon them to build him a tabernacle in which he 
may dwell among them. “ Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: 
of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart, ye shall take my offering. And this is 
the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, and blue, and purple, and 
scarlet, and fine linen,” etc., “And let them make me a Sanctuary; that I may dwell among 
them.” 1 This command for a Sanctuary in which the Ark of the Covenant was to dwell, 
and over which the glory of God was to rest, was, as has been said, “the passing symbol 
of an eternal truth.” That is, God has come down to dwell amongst us; he has “mixed 
himself up with us and our sins for our salvation.” In other words, the central truth symbol¬ 
ized by the tabernacle in which God dwelt, and whose glory lived concealed in its Most Holy 
Place, is that of the incarnation. “ The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we 
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.” 2 
If any have the thought that the change from worshiping God under the whole canopy of 
heaven, with the stars for lamps and the sun for the glory of it, to a comparatively small, 
though exquisitely constructed, tent, was a movement in the direction of limitation rather than 
of progress and enlargement, let them consider for a moment the utter impossibility of our 
comprehending God without limitation and the necessity of his coming nigh unto us and 
limiting himself, that we might know him and draw nigh to him. The incarnation of God in 
Christ was a limitation, and yet it was an advance in revelation and a great unfolding of the 
final purpose of God in our creation. Was the world ever able to know God without the 
limitations of the incarnation, as it has done since that great and transcendent event? Limi¬ 
tation is not always a contraction or a loss. We Can conceive of unlimited license of thought 
and action; and we can conceive of a liberty of action controlled by certain limitations which 
is infinitely more adapted to our advancement than the unbridled license. For who does not 
recognize the superiority of liberty over license ? 

The outward history of the tabernacle begins with Exodus xxv. It was finished in about 
nine months, and the first formal act of worship in connection with it was on the first day of 
the second year of the Exodus from Egypt. 3 When it was finished and set up on that first day 
of the first month of the second year of the Exodus, the cloud that had accompanied them all 
through their journeyings covered the tent of the congregation and “the glory of the Lord 
filled the tabernacle” — that is, the Most Holy Place. 4 For a minute description of the taber¬ 
nacle, its furniture and service, we must refer the reader to the chapters in Exodus from 
the twenty-fifth onward to the close of the book. It was henceforth to be the meeting place 
between God and the people. The whole camp of Israel was now arranged in due order 
around this holy tent, 0 God dwelling “ in the midst of them,” unseen, indeed, and yet in 
a true and mysterious sense visibly present with them. When the cloud which rested upon 
the tabernacle moved, then all the camp struck their tents, the tabernacle was taken down, 
all its parts covered and all Israel followed the cloud until it stopped and then the camp 
was reformed with the tabernacle again in their midst. Thus for forty years the children of 
Israel wandered in the wilderness, God in the midst of them even in their wanderings and sins. 


1 Exodus xxv, 2-4, 8. 


2 John i, 14. 


3 Exodus xl, 17. 


4 Exodus xl, 34-38. 


6 Numbers ii, 2. 



TABERNACLE DESCRIBED — HOLY OF HOLIES. 


317 


The following brief outline of the whole structure, and its contents, must suffice for the 
want of more space. The reader with these hints will be able to follow the subject farther by a 
direct study of the Scriptures. 

1. Of the Tabernacle Itself. Its dimensions were thirty cubits in length, by ten in 
height, and ten in width. Reckoning a cubic at eighteen inches, we have the dimensions 
as follows for length, breadth, and height, 45 by 15 by 15 feet. The Holy of Holies, in which 
were the Ark and the mercy seat (where the glory of God dwelt), occupied the western end of 
the tabernacle and was one-third of the whole — that is, it was a square room, without other 
light than the glory of God. The whole tabernacle was surrounded by a great court of which 
mention will be made farther on. It was constructed with sockets, boards, pillars, veils, and 
coverings. The boards were placed on end resting in sockets of brass which were buried — or 
partly buried — in the ground. These boards, of shittim wood, constituted the framework of 
the structure, being closely joined and held together by bars of wood passing through rings, 
two rows of which were at the top and two at the bottom. The upright boards were kept in 
place by cords, or, as we would say, guy ropes. The entrance to the tabernacle was from the 
west, which was supplied with six pillars, instead of being inclosed solidly by boards as on the 
two sides and eastern end. This framework was covered with four coverings. The first one — 
that is, the one first laid over — was made of linen, in which was wrought with the needle blue, 
and purple, and scarlet threads. Besides this, it had representations of the cherubim wrought 
or embroidered on it, probably with thread of gold. The next covering over this was made 
of goats’ hair. The next, again, was made of rams’ skins dyed red. The outer covering was 
made of badger skins — probably seal skins. 1 The tabernacle was divided on the inside into 
two chambers. The Most Holy Place, in the western end, was ten cubits square, and the height 
being also ten cubits, made it a perfect cube — fifteen feet each way (taking the cubit to be 
eighteen inches). The Holy Place was a room twice the size of the Most Holy Place; that is, 
twenty cubits long from east to west, by fifteen cubits wide from north to south; or, in our 
measurement, thirty by fifteen feet, and fifteen feet in height. The Holy Place was divided 
from the Most Holy Place by a beautiful veil or curtain which was never passed, except once a 
year, by the high priest on the day of atonement. This Holy Place was again divided from 
the outer court by a curtain hung over the pillars at the west end of the tabernacle, and was the 
sanctuary where the daily services of the tabernacle were discharged. The whole tabernacle 
was a beautiful, and, in every part, and in all its furniture and service, a significant type of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. 2 In the fullness of time, God was manifested in the flesh and dwelt among 
us and we beheld his glory. Jesus, in his ministry and death, fulfilled all the typical prophe¬ 
cies of him contained in the tabernacle and its service. At the time of our Lord’s crucifixion, 
the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom and the Holy of Holies exposed to view, 
revealing the fact that henceforth God and the mercy seat were not there. But it is said that 
he “ hath consecrated for us a new and living way.” “ Into the heavens he has entered with 
his own blood.” 

The Holy of Holies. This has been already briefly described. In this Most Holy 
Place God commanded the “ Ark of the testimony ” was to be set, and the veil drawn. The 
ark of the testimony was an oblong chest in which the two tables of stone were placed, with a 
pot containing manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded. The cover of this chest was overlaid 
with pure gold, and of the same precious material two cherubim — one on either end — were 
beaten out and placed. This golden lid was called the “ mercy seat,” and on this mercy seat, 
when the tabernacle was at rest, the glory of the Lord rested. Here he dwelt. And from 
this propitiatory, he communed with the people through the high priest, who entered “once 


1 For details see Exodus xxvi. 


2 John i, 14; Matthew xxvii, 51; Hebrews x, 20. 



318 


THE HOLY PLACE—THE COURT. 


every year ” with the blood of atonement, and with the golden censer. 1 The thoughtful student 
can easily see the significance of all this. The tables of stone in the ark of the testimony show 
us how all God’s dealings with us are founded upon his everlasting law of righteousness. The 
pot of manna tells of his providential care for us, as a part of his goodness. The rod of Aaron 
that budded teaches us that priesthood is not an indifferent matter, but fundamental to the 
whole plan of salvation, and may neither be usurped nor dispensed with. The mercy seat points 
us directly to Christ, “ who is our mercy seat,” or propitiation. 2 The whole clearly points to 
the plan of salvation as fully wrought out for us by our Lord Jesus Christ. Since the law was 
broken as soon as it was given, it is evident that with and under that alone we could expect 
nothing but death. But with the mercy seat over and upon the law, and bound together in the 
same covenant ark, we understand how God can “ still be just and yet the justifier of him that 
believeth in Jesus.” 3 The first ten chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews is devoted to the 
exposition of this tabernacle service and its significance. We earnestly commend our readers 
to a careful study of this most wonderful epistle, in connection with this* account of the taber¬ 
nacle and the service therewith connected, as set forth in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. No 
Christian can afford to live and not give time and prayerful study to these books of the Bible. 

The Holy Place. This, as we have already indicated, was the eastern and largest room 
in the tabernacle. In this room was ordered to be placed the golden table for the “shew- 
bread,” the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar of incense, (a) The bread .* Twelve 
loaves were placed fresh upon the table every sabbath, and the old bread eaten only by the 
priests in the Holy Place. We know what this bread typifies. Jesus is the bread of life, and 
as, under the New Testament dispensation, all the Lord’s people are priests, having access by 
his blood, it tells us that there is now unbroken communion between God and his people 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, (b) The golden candlestick. This was a beautiful lamp-stand, 
having one central stem with six branches, three on either side. It was made of pure gold, 
containing a talent of that precious metal, and worth in our money more than $25,000. A 
lamp of olive oil was placed on each branch, as well as on the central stem. It was the duty of 
the high priest to trim and fill these lamps every morning, and they burned continually day 
and night, and furnished the only light in the Holy Place — none being admitted from the 
outer world. 5 Here we have Jesus set before us again as our Light, the “true light, which 
lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” 6 (c) The altar of incense. This was the 
third article of furniture in the Holy Place, also made of gold. On this altar was burned 
continually, with fire taken from the brazen altar outside the tabernacle first kindled from 
heaven, sweet spices which rose heavenward, filling the whole place with a sweet smell. 7 The 
high priest commenced the morning and evening worship by offering incense upon this altar. 
The time of offering incense was the time of public prayer, 8 and the burning of incense was the 
type of prayer. David used it as such. 9 John speaks of this service, linking it with “the 
prayers of the saints.” 10 No doubt there is also a deep significance in this service, as relating 
to the prayers of our Lord Jesus Christ on our behalf. Indeed, our prayer can only ascend to 
God as odors of sweet incense, when they go up through him, and with his prayers for us, “who 
ever liveth to make intercession.” 

The Court. Round about the tabernacle there was a court or open space, inclosed by a 
curtain of linen, or possibly open work, suspended from sixty pillars, which were placed in 
sockets and held in place by cords attached to the capitals of the pillars and made secure by 
tent-pins made of brass, driven into the ground on either side. This court was one hundred 
cubits by fifty, or one hundred and fifty feet long by seventy-five feet in width. 11 A curtain of 

1 Exodus xxv, 10-22; Hebrews ix, x; I. Peter i, 12. 2 Romans iii, 25 ; I. John ii, 2. 3 Romans iii, 20-26. 

4 For particulars concerning the table of shewbread, see Exodus xxv, 23-30, xxvi, 35; Leviticus ii, 13, xxi, 6,8,17, 21, 22, 

xxiv, 5, 7-9. 5 Exodus xxv, 31-39, xxvii, 20, 21, xxx, 7, 8. 6 John i, 9, viii, 12, ix, 5. 7 Exodus xxx, 1-8. 

8 Luke i, 10. 9 Psalm cxli, 2. 10 Revelation v, 8, viii, 3, 4. 11 Exodus xxvii, 9-18. 



CONSECRATION OF CEREMONIAL ADJUNCTS. 


319 


superior needlework was suspended from the pillars in front of the court, corresponding with 
the door to the tabernacle. Within this court was placed: {a) The altar of burnt offering — 
not immediately before the door, but in line with the door; for between this altar and the door 
was the “ brazen layer.” 1 This altar was made of wood, covered with plates of brass, having 
hooks (called horns) at each corner, probably to denote strength. They were sometimes used 
for securing victims, previous to sacrificing them . 2 .It was “to make reconciliation upon” — 
that is, between God and his offending people. It fittingly sets forth to us the work of our 
Lord on the cross . 3 

This altar was the central point of service in connection with the tabernacle. More 
importance is attached to it than to any other. It was “ the altar” preeminently. No one 
could pass into the tabernacle except he first passed this altar. It stood guard, as it were, not 
only over the tabernacle, but especially over the Most Holy Place . 4 It was the place of trans¬ 
ference of the guilt of the people from themselves to their offerings, while the virtue and 
excellence of the offerings were imputed to them. We turn from this brazen altar to Christ 
himself, “ who is his only altar,” and sing with our liymnist: 

My faith would lay her hand 
On that dear head of thine; 

While like a penitent I stand, 

And there confess my sin. 

My soul looks back to see 

The burdens thou did’st bear 

While hanging on the cursed tree, 

And knows her guilt was there. 

( b ) The laver of brass. This was placed between the altar and the tabernacle . 5 In this laver 
the priests were to wash their hands and feet before going into the tabernacle — thus denoting 
the necessity of holiness in worshiping, and especially in the service of God. The neglect of 
this duty was visited with the penalty of death. The spiritual significance of this is further 
seen, no doubt, in the cleansing work of the Holy Ghost in connection with the sacrificial work 
of Christ . 6 Not only must we partake of the righteousness of Christ through his voluntary 
sacrifice for us, but we must be born again and sanctified by the work of the Holy Ghost, before 
we may either worship or serve God in the tabernacle, much less draw near and commune with 
him from off the mercy seat. 

The Anointing Oil. Having erected the tabernacle, placed its furniture, built the court, 
and set therein the altar and laver, the next thing in order was to take the anointing oil, and 
anoint the tabernacle and all that was therein, the altar and all its vessels, the brazen laver, and 
its foot. All was to be holy unto the Lord, and, therefore, everything was hallowed by the oil. 
This oil was a peculiar compound . 7 It was very precious, and very sweet in its perfume; it was 
made by a recipe handed down from God himself, was forbidden to be compounded or used 
except for the sole purpose of holy anointing oil for the tabernacle and the priests, and a portion 
of it was laid up before the ark of the testimony. This undoubtedly sets forth to us, in type, 
the Holy Spirit and his work. Here we see how the blood of the offerings and the oil for 
anointing went, as it were, hand in hand, just as in the present dispensation, the work of 
Christ for atonement and the work of the Holy Ghost for sanctification and endowment with 
power must go together. Jesus, when he entered upon his public ministry, was anointed by the 
Holy Ghost, and wrought all his work in that Great Power. “ He was anointed with the oil of 

1 Exodus xxx, 18. 2 Exodus xxvii, 1-8; Leviticus viii, 15. 3 Colossians i, 20,22. 

* Exodus xxix, 37 ; Matthew xxiii, 19. 5 Exodus xxx, 18-21. 6 Ephesians v, 25-27 ; Titus iii, 5, 6. 

7 Exodus xxx, 23-38. 



320 


SPIRITUAL SYMBOLISM— THE PRIESTHOOD. 


gladness above his fellows,” and God gave him the Spirit “ without measure.” So, also, are we 
sharers in this anointing, and without it we are not, and cannot be, his true disciples or 
servants . 1 2 Thus we see how all things are consecrated by the Spirit of God — not only the 
priests, but all the instruments of service. We are all baptized by one Spirit into one body, and 
are made to drink into that one Spirit. 

Lessons from the Whole. We have seen how the tabernacle was built, from the central 
Most Holy Place to the curtain hanging over the gate of the court. Let us now return by the 
way. God has builded and furnished his house, and we may learn how to come into his presence 
and live. First, we stand at the court gate. That is the door by which we must enter. There 
we are met by a priest, who holds it aside for us. That door and that priest is Christ; by him 
we may enter in, and without him there is no way to the Father . 3 Next we stand by the brazen 
altar, and there our offering is made and we are reconciled to God. That Altar and the 
Offering thereon is Christ, who is Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice to us. Then we pass on to the 
Brazen Laver; there we are sanctified, “ for without holiness, no man can see the Lord.” That 
Laver is the Holy Ghost taking the things of Christ, and showing them to us; and “ shedding 
on us abundantly the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost by Jesus 
Christ.” Then we are admitted into the Holy Place, where prayer and communion are carried 
on through the priest, in the light of the Golden Candlestick, we eating the sliewbread, and 
burning the incense of prayer upon the golden altar. At last we come to the Holiest of All. 
Thank God! the veil that hitherto has separated us from the very presence and glory of God 
has been, once for all, “ rent asunder ” from the top to the bottom, and we may come “ boldly 
into his presence,” “with full assurance of faith,” and have “ fellowship with the Father, and 
with his Son Jesus Christ,” and with the blessed Holy Sjfirit. Under the law it was death to 
enter that Holy of Holies. Now that the veil is rent asunder and the way into the Holiest 
of All opened to us, it is death if we do not enter. 


CHAPTER VII. 

THE PRIESTHOOD . 3 

AT the same time that instructions.were given for the building and furnishing of the taber- 
-A nacle, minute directions were also given for the setting apart, through ordination and 
consecration, of certain men for the priesthood. The elaborate ritual in connection with the 
tabernacle would require the services of specially trained and educated men. 

The history of the Hebrew priesthood is very interesting. We have seen that in primitive 
times the priesthood was not confined to any caste or official position. The father was the 
priest of the family, and this function descended with the birthright. Abraham and Job were 
both priests in their own families, and so it was and had been among the people who knew God 
in the pre-Abrahamic days. The contact of the Hebrews with the Egyptian priesthood no 
doubt greatly influenced them in the acceptance of an order of priests who should minister for 
them in the holy offices, and mediate for them with God. Joseph was married to a priest’s 
daughter in Egypt, and Moses was educated and trained by the Egyptian priests. That he was 
perfectly familiar with their dress, clothing, and all that appertained to their service, there is no 
doubt. Possibly in the inauguration of the Hebrew priesthood not a few suggestions were 


1 Hebrews i, 9; John iii, 34, xx, 22; Acts ii, 4, 38; Romans viii; Ephesians i, 13, ii, 18-22, iii, 5-16, iv, 3, 4, 30, vi, 17. 

2 John xiv, 6. 3 Exodus xxvii-xxix; Leviticus viii. 





BIDA. 


THE SAVIOR 










































322 


FUNCTIONS OF THE JEWISH PRIESTS. 


borrowed, as without doubt the same was done in the matter of the construction and furnishing 
of the tabernacle ; but, at the same time, there are such radical differences observed that we are 
certain that many of the vile and superstitious practices and customs of the Egyptians were 
protested against—as, for instance, the Hebrew priests were so clothed and so served that their 
nakedness should not be apparent to the worshipers who claimed their service . 1 Many of the 
rites of the Egyptians in the exposition of their nature worship were very obscene; whereas 
Moses was careful that the utmost purity and chastity should characterize all that pertained to 
the worship of God. The fundamental doctrine inculcated in the Hebrew worship was the 
holiness of God. 

The twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth chapters of Exodus and the eighth chapter of Levit¬ 
icus contain the main particulars of the call and consecration of the Aaronic priesthood. 
“ And take thou unto thee Aaron, thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children 
of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, 
Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons .” 2 Aaron was the high priest, as was subsequently shown, 
while his four sons were associated with him. The high priesthood descended with the 
birthright. In the mean time, the sons of the high priest seemed to have exercised all the 
functions of their father except that of entering into the Holiest of All on the annual day of 
atonement. 

The functions of the priest were essentially those of a mediator between the congregation 
and God. Very early in the history of religion the sense of sin suggested to worshipers — no 
doubt the suggestion was a remnant of a primitive revelation — the need of someone to inter¬ 
cede and mediate for them with God. Job did so for his children when he offered sacrifices for 
them in case they had sinned through carelessness or forgetfulness . 3 The priest went with the 
sacrifice to God, on behalf of those for whom he mediated. In the Hebrew ritual, as will be 
seen when we come to examine the various offerings, the priest was at once the representative of 
the offerers and their mediator with God. This is particularly seen in connection with the 
great annual atonement when the priest went into the Holiest of All to appear in the presence 
of God for the people, and receive for them the forgiveness of their sins . 4 It was the business 
of the priests, and particularly of the associated priests, to meet the people at the gate of the 
tabernacle and receive their offerings for sacrifice, hear their confessions, and make their 
offerings for them. It was also their business to meet the people and transact any business for 
them where questions of wrong and trespass occurred between man and man. Later on, their 
functions took on an ethical character. They were the teachers of the people, particularly of 
the children; in fact, the office of prophet was not altogether disassociated from theirs, especially 
in the earlier days of the priesthood, before the order of prophets arose. 

The ceremonies in connection with their selection, qualification and consecration, were very 
minute and circumstantial, all having a symbolical and instructive significance in respect of the 
Holiness of God, the exceeding sinfulness of men, and the necessity of being made clean from 
all sin before coming into God’s presence. We can only point out some of the more marked 
characteristics of these ceremonials, leaving the reader to follow up the study in the Bible 
itself. 

The twenty-eighth chapter of Exodus gives us a detailed description of the high priest’s 
robes and his clothing, as also the less complete clothing of the associate priests. There were 
eight pieces in the dress of the high priest. The breeches of linen to hide his nakedness , 5 the 
inner coat, or linen shirt or tunic; the linen girdle; the robe of the epliod; the ephod; the 
breastplate and shoulder pieces; the bonnet or turban ; and the golden mitre. The ephod was 
the chief article of this clothing. It was woven of gold, blue, purple, and fine-twined linen, 


1 Exodus xx, 26; xxviii, 42. 
5 Exodus xxviii, 42. 


2 Exodus xxviii, 1. 


3 Job i, 5. 


4 Compare Leviticus xvi with Hebrews ix, x. 



VESTMENTS OF THE PRIESTS. 


323 


the whole beautifully embroidered . 1 It was made of two pieces joined at the shoulders, and 
thus hung down on the back and over the breast of the high priest. This was emphatically 
the “ garment of salvation ” to set forth our Lord’s perfect righteousness, and the “ robe of 
righteousness ” in which his people are clothed “ for his sake.” On the shoulders where the 
epliod was joined were fastened two onyx stones, on either of which were engraved the names 
of the twelve tribes of Israel; on the front of the ephod there was the beautiful breastplate, 
composed of four rows of precious stones — three in each row. On each of these stones there 
was engraved the name of one of the tribes. These were hung by a curious and ingenious 
device upon the ephod. The shoulder pieces were called, or said to be for, “ a memorial of 
Israel,” to be borne on the shoulders of Aaron before the Lord. The breastplate, with its 
twelve glorious and shining stones, lay upon Aaron’s breast and was called the “ breastplate of 
judgment.” Nothing could be more symbolically beautiful than the position and meaning of 
these stones. The high priest represents our Lord Jesus Christ, the true and Only Living 
High Priest, who always stands in presence of God for us. On his shoulders he bears up his 
people, even as the government is upon his shoulders . 2 He takes the responsibility of bearing 
us always before the Lord. He is our strength to bear us up. On his breast, as it were over 
and in his heart, he carries us always for judgment or justification — a justification which rests 
upon his love for us, who gave himself a sacrifice for our sins. The preciousness and the ever- 
shining qualities of these stones, resting upon the shoulders and upon the heart of the high 
priest, showed to Israel the place God had given them by grace. This is our true standing 
with God in Christ. Most precious is the saying of Peter that all who believe have a like 
honor with Christ in God’s sight. The nearer and more the light is shed upon precious stones, 
the more the precious stones shine and glisten. So the nearer we come to God in Christ the 
more precious are we seen to be and the more beautiful in Christ. It is for us to apprehend 
all this by faith . 3 Then there was the Urim and the Thummim. “ And thou shalt put in the 
breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart 
when he goeth in before the Lord : and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of 
Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually . 4 Various passages of Scripture teach us that 
the object and use of the Urim and Thummim was to get the judgment of the Lord upon 
various matters which affected the details of Israel’s walk and life. It was an instrument for 
the revelation or communication of the will of God to Israel, or to any individual who appealed 
to it upon any matter upon which they wished divine guidance . 5 It would seem from this that 
the high priest not only carried the judgment of the people before the Lord on his heart 
always, but brought the judgment of the Lord from the Lord to the people. Jesus not only 
justifies us by bearing us in his own righteousness before God, but he reveals the will of God to 
us in respect of our walk. The Holy Spirit does for us who walk in the spirit what the Urim 
and Thummim did for Israel of old. Over all this was placed or worn the “robe of the ephod, 
all of blue,” upon the hem of which were embroidered pomegranates, and between every two 
pomegranates there was hung a golden bell, which went tinkling as the high priest walked in 
and out before the Lord . 6 The pomegranates and the bells alternated with each other, and are 
emblems of testimony and fruit. Even so ought we to walk and live before the Lord, both 
going out and coming in, bearing in our lives “ the fruits of the spirit,” and giving forth the 
testimony of our lips — that is, as Jesus was both seen and heard, so, also, ought we to sound 
forth his testimony and show forth the fruit of his life and his virtues. Next we have the 
plate of pure gold placed in the front of the high priest’s mitre or turban, on which is engraved 
“ HOLINESS TO THE LORD.” “ It shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be 
accepted before the Lord .” 7 The high priest was always before the Lord, and the people in 

1 Exodus xxviii, 6. 2 Isaiah ix, 6. 3 Exodus xxviii, 9-29. 4 Exodus xxviii, 30. 5 Numbers xxvii, 21; 

Deuteronomy xxxiii, 8-10 ; I. Samuel xxviii, 6; Ezra ii, 63, etc. 6 Exodus xxviii, 31-35. 7 Exodus xxviii, 36-38. 

23 



324 


CONSECRATION TO THE PRIESTHOOD. 


him were always accepted. He stood for them. So are we always represented and always 
accepted before the Lord in our Great High Priest. 

The clothing of the other priests, Aaron’s sons, is set forth in verses 40 to 43 — coats, 
girdles, and bonnets, and breeches of fine linen, all for glory and beauty. The clothing of 
the ordinary priest was like the clothing of the high priest, who alone had the ephod, and 
what pertained to that wonderful garment besides. The whole clothing, as I have said, is 
the garment of selection which sets forth the merit and work of our Lord for us, and which 
we put on when we put him on by faith. 

We pass now to the consideration of the consecration of the priests, recorded in the 
twenty-ninth chapter of Exodus and the eighth chapter of Leviticus. “And this is the thing 
that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them to minister unto me in the priest’s office.” 1 Before 
looking at two or three particulars in connection with the consecration of the priests in this 
chapter, I may remark that it was necessary that every man, even of the family of Aaron, who 
ministered in the priest’s office should be “without blemish”—that is, a perfect man physically. 
Since the high priest represents our Lord Jesus Christ and the priests the Church, they must in 
the first instance stand for perfection, both as regards our Lord, who was a perfect man in every 
respect, and the Church which in Christ shares his perfection and is destined actually to be 
presented finally “ a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that 
it should be holy and without blemish.” 2 We are, therefore, told that no one might come nigh 
to God in the priest’s office to offer anything unto God who had any sort of physical blemish, 
or was in any wise deformed. 3 This is most interesting and instructive, and certainly points to 
the essential perfection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Priest of his people, who, in the 
fullness of time, was to take up and fulfill in his own person, once for all, these significant 
types. For the same reason the priests, though they might marry, could marry only a virgin 
of Israel; no profane or divorced woman could be the wife of a priest. So strict was the rule 
of personal and ceremonial purity that if a sister of a priest should be or become unchaste it 
disqualified the priest. 

Having duly examined them as to physical perfection, Moses proceeded to consecrate his 
brother and his sons, beginning by providing a young bullock and two rams, without blemish; 
some unleavened bread and cakes tempered with oil, and wafers of wheaten flour, unleavened 
and anointed with oil. These latter were placed in a basket and brought, with the bullock and 
the rams, to the door of the tabernacle with the priests. Here the priests were divested of their 
common clothing or old clothes, and washed with water. Then they were clothed with the 
special garments provided for them, those for the high priest and those for his sons and asso¬ 
ciates. The high priest in the meantime, having been clothed, was anointed with oil. This was 
the sign and mark of his preeminence, even as Christ was anointed with oil above his fellows. 
Then followed the ceremony of slaying the bullock for a sin offering, touching the horns of 
the altar with the blood and pouring out the residue at the bottom of the altar and burning 
the carcass outside the camp. 4 The priests, under this law, of course, being men and types 
of Christ, must need be purged of sin before they could take the place of the Sinless Priest to 
offer for the sinful people. After the sin offering, there followed the sacrifice of two rams. The 
one was for a burnt offering, which set forth that the priest was wholly consecrated to God in 
all his service. 5 The other ram was slain and offered as “ a ram of consecration.” 6 The blood 
of this ram was taken and a portion of it applied to the right ear, and to the thumb of the 
right hand, and the great toe of the right foot, thus especially consecrating every part of the 
priest to the service of God. If the ear is consecrated to hear the word of God, the hand to 
do the will of God in all holy service, and the foot to maintain a holy walk, then, indeed, is 

1 Exodus xxix, 1. 2 Ephesians v, 25-27. 3 Leviticus xxi, 16-23. 4 Exodus xxix, 10-14. 

5 Exodus xxix, 15-18. 6 Exodus xxix, 22. 



OFFERING OF THE FIRST SACRIFICE. 


32e5 


the salvation of man come. After this, a portion of the blood, with the anointing oil, was 
taken and sprinkled alike upon both Aaron and his sons, thus showing their redemption, 
consecration, and sanctification. The atonement and the Holy Spirit thus being signified in 
connection with these ceremonies, then followed the offering of the meat offerings and the 
peace offerings, and instructions for the daily offering of atonement upon the altar, and the 
daily sacrifices of the two lambs as a continual burnt offering during the year. I have omitted 
to give very close attention to details here in respect of these offerings in connection with the 
consecration of the priests, because later on the whole subject of the offerings will come before 
us for consideration as they are set forth in the Book of Leviticus, which is the book of 
redemption. 

The consecration of the priests having been accomplished, the Lord graciously concluded 
his instructions with this great promise: “ There I will meet with the children of Israel, and 
the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the 
congregation and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister unto me 
in the priest’s office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. 
And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of 
Egypt, that I may dwell among them : I am the Lord their God .” 1 


CHAPTER VIII. 

STRANGE FIRE. 

O NE of the most solemn and awful events in connection with the inauguration of the cere¬ 
monial worship of the Hebrew people is recorded in Leviticus . 2 After the consecration 
of himself and his sons, Aaron proceeded to offer upon the altar the burnt offering, the meat 
offering, the peace offering, and the sin offering, on behalf of the people . 3 Then, the offerings 
having been waved before the Lord, Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle and came out 
again and “ blessed the people.” Then befell a glorious wonder. “ The glory of the Lord 
appeared to all the people. And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed 
upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which, when all the people saw they shouted, 
and fell on their faces .” 4 The glory of the Lord — what was it? Let it be remembered that 
the mysterious pillar of cloud which followed the children of Israel always dwelt or hung over 
the tabernacle, or else stood beside it. At night it became like a lambent flame of fire. This 
cloud was the sign of God’s presence. The glory of the Lord was manifested when this cloud 
became red and fiery — when it glowed with supernatural fire — as in later times the glory of 
the Lord answered by the Urim and Thummim. When everything was complete, and the new 
ceremonial was about to be inaugurated, the cloud took on its fiery glory, which signified the 
Lord’s pleasure with it all. Whilst they were beholding, lo! a flame of fire leaped from that 
Shekinah glory and fell upon the burnt offering lying upon the altar and consumed it. That 
is, the fire which consumed the first burnt offering, offered according to the divinely directed 
and instituted ceremonial, was kindled front heaven. Thenceforth that supernatural fire burned 
upon the altar; no other fire than that must thereafter be used in the ceremonial worship of 
God. “Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon,” that is, incense kindled with “strange fire,” 
“ which the Lord commanded them not .” 5 Now, it seems that some time after the solemn 


1 Exodus xxix, 43-46. 2 Leviticus x, 1-7. "Leviticus ix. 

5 Exodus xxx, 9; Leviticus x, 1, xvi, 12; Numbers xvi, 18, 46, 


4 Leviticus ix, 6, 23, 24. 




326 


SUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS IN RELIGION. 


inauguration of worship, Nadab and Abihu, two of the sons of Aaron, “took either of them 
his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the 
Lord, which he commanded them not.” 1 No sooner had they thus disobeyed the Lord and 
desecrated the holy service by “ strange fire,” than a flame of supernatural fire burst out from 
the cloudy pillar and consumed these sacrilegious priests upon the spot. “ And there went out 
fire from before the Lord, and devoured them; and they died before the Lord. Then Moses 
said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake saying, I will be sanctified 2 in them that 
come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.” 3 Aaron held his peace before this 
awful visitation upon his sons, who had presumed to disobey the Lord and approach him with 
“strange fire”—that is common, natural fire—instead of kindling their censers with the super¬ 
natural fire which the Lord had kindled upon the altar, and which he required should be used 
in all the worship of the tabernacle. The dead bodies of these two offending priests were 
carried outside of the camp and buried. Aaron was not permitted so much as to uncover his 
head or show any sign of mourning, under pain of being himself consumed. 

The question naturally arises as to the significance of this supernatural fire, the strange 
fire, and the awful punishment which befell the two priests. It seems to me that the expla¬ 
nation and profound typical significance are not far to seek, and that there is a very great and 
important lesson in it for our own day. Let us, therefore, seek the explanation. 

1. There are those who maintain that Moses borrowed his ceremonials from Egypt; that 
the tabernacle, and the priesthood, and the offerings were all patterned after Egyptian models. 
Without discussing this question here, let it be admitted for the moment that there was a 
similarity, more or less extensive, in the outward forms used in the ceremonials of Israel and 
those used by the Egyptian priesthood. For that very reason the Hebrew ceremonial and 
ritual service was, from the very beginning, distinguished by the addition of a supernatural 
element. That supernatural element was the “fire out from before the Lord,” which “con¬ 
sumed upon the altar the fat of the burnt offering.” It was this supernatural element in the 
Hebrew worship which distinguished it, not only from the Egyptian worship but from all 
other cults of the world. It was the offering of worship (the burning of the censers with the 
incense before the Lord) with “ strange ” or natural “ fire ”— fire of their own, or of human 
kindling — which constituted the grave offense on the part of Nadab and Abihu. In fact, this 
offering of “ strange fire ” was the denial of the whole difference between the natural and the 
supernatural in the service of God. All men are religious, and religious service of some sort 
or another is common to all people. God has given to us a supernatural revelation of himself 
and of his will concerning us, by the Spirit of God, and he requires from us a worship which 
shall be supernaturally directed and energized by the Holy Spirit. To make the application of 
this whole matter level to our Christian time, we may say that the whole, or almost the whole, 
difference between the religion of Christ and all the other religions of the world is this: The 
Christian religion is a supernatural religion — supernatural in its Scriptures; supernatural in 
the manifestation of God in Christ — in incarnation ; supernatural in the atonement and resur¬ 
rection ; supernatural in the gift of the Holy Spirit; supernatural in the new creation, or 
regeneration, of all true believers; and supernatural in that, without the presence and power of 
the Holy Spirit, nothing can be done acceptable with God. The Gospel cannot be effectually 
preached, except with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven ; the Christian can neither pray, 
nor maintain a Christian walk, nor do any acceptable Christian work except he be energized by 
the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, there are those who say it does not matter what you 
believe or how you serve God, if only you be sincere. The natural reason and the religious 
energy of the flesh (strange fire) are just as good, as revelation, as the Holy Spirit (the fire 
sent from God) with which to perform our worship and service. Nadab and Abihu were the 


1 Leviticus x, 1. 


2 Exodus xix, 22. 


Leviticus x, 2, 3. 




THE DIVINE PRESENCE SYMBOLIZED BY FIRE. 


327 


progenitors of a merely carnal worship under divinely revealed forms. They had the form of 
godliness but not the power. They said to themselves, What difference will it make whether 
our censers be kindled with fire from off the altar or by natural fire ? The incense will burn 
just as well, and smell just as sweet, and the smoke of it will rise as high, if kindled with 
natural fire, as if it were burnt with the God-given fire from off the altar. So men say to-day 
who deny the supernatural in religion. A good work done without the Holy Spirit is just as 
good as a good work done by the Holy Spirit. That is, the energy of the flesh in religion is 
just as good as the power of the Spirit. To follow the example of a human Christ is just as 
good as to believe in and follow a supernatural Christ. Indeed, it is the controversy between 
rationalism under a hundred forms and revealed religion, which is foreshadowed here in these 
long-ago times when God would be sanctified in this matter. 

2. Fire has always been the sign of God’s presence and the symbol of his energy among 
men. As far back as the time of Cain and Abel this controversy between strict obedience to 
God and the will worship of man was settled by fire. God commanded a certain kind of 
sacrifice. Abel obeyed God and brought an offering from the flock. Cain also worshiped the 
Lord, but he brought a “strange” offering—that is, from the earth, an offering of fruits. Why 
was it not just as good as Abel’s lamb? Did he not offer it to the Lord, and was he not as 
devout as Abel ? What difference did it make whether one offered a lamb or a handful of 
fruit? God answered by fire and accepted Abel’s offering. “And the Lord had respect unto 
Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” 1 How did 
the Lord signify his respect or acceptance of Abel’s offering? Exactly as he did when he 
sent fire out from before him and kindled the burnt offering before the tabernacle, at the time 
of the inauguration of the Hebrew ritual. That this burning with fire from heaven was the 
sign of God’s presence and acceptance is so well known to every Bible student that a simple 
reference to a few cases will suffice. Here are a few fit and sample illustrations of this great 
truth: “ The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend 
thee; send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion; remember all thy 
offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice.” 2 When Gideon doubted whether the young man 
who stood by him with a commission from God to deliver Israel was the Angel of the Lord, 
the test was made by supernatural fire. “And the Angel of God said unto him, Take flesh 
and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did 
so. Then the Angel of the Lord put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and 
touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and con¬ 
sumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the Angel of the Lord departed out of his 
sight.” 3 The same thing happened substantially with Manoah and the angel, in respect to 
the communication from heaven about the birth of Samson. 4 The test by fire in case of the 
controversy between Elijah and the priests of Baal, as to who was the Lord, is so well known 
that I need only refer to it. “ The God that answereth by fire let him be God.” 5 We know 
the result of this appeal. God answered by fire, and for the time at least the priests of Baal 
were overthrown and Israel recovered to their loyalty to Jehovah. The case of David’s offer¬ 
ing, also, on the threshing floor of Ornan, strongly supports the fact that supernatural fire 
was the constant test of the presence of God and of God’s acceptance of man’s offering and 
service. “And David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace 
offerings, and called upon the Lord; and he answered him by fire from heaven upon the altar 
of burnt offering.” 6 I mention one other case which confirms the view that supernatural fire 
from heaven was the one great feature in the ritual of the Hebrews that distinguished and 
differentiated it from that of any other cult in the world. We have seen God manifesting 

1 Genesis iv, 3-5. 1 Psalm xx, 1-3. Literally, see margin: “ turn to ashes ” or burn up the fat of thy burnt offering. 

3 Judges vi, 20, 21. 1 Judges xiii, 18-21. 5 1. Kings xviii, 24. 6 1. Chronicles xxi, 26. 



328 


THE FIRE OF THE HOLY GHOST. 


himself in fire in the Garden of Eden, by the “ flaming sword in accepting the sacrifice of 
Abel, by consuming it with fire from heaven; in the Burning Bush, out of which he manifested 
and declared himself to Moses as the God of Incarnation and Grace; 1 in kindling the first altar 
fire in connection with the inauguration of the ritual in Israel; in connection with his appear¬ 
ance as the Angel of the Lord to Gideon and Manoah; in the conflict between Elijah and the 
priests of Baal; in connection with David’s celebrated offering on the threshing floor of Oman; 
and now, at last, we come to the dedication of the great and glorious temple of Solomon, which 
took the place in Israel of the tabernacle, after her national life was fixed and consolidated. 
When Solomon had finished his dedicatory prayer and offered the house and all its furniture 
and appointments to Jehovah, and besought his continued mercy upon Israel, Jehovah gave 
him answer by fire from heaven. “ Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire 
came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of 
the Lord filled the house.” 2 

That this supernatural fire refers symbolically to the supernatural element in Christianity 
— namely, the Holy Spirit — there seems not the least doubt. In Malachi’s prophecy it was 
declared that the Messiah should come as a refiner’s fire. 3 When John the Baptist proclaimed 
the appearance of Jesus he declared that he would baptize the people with the Holy Ghost and 
with fire. We know that on the day of Pentecost the apostles and believers gathered in that 
upper room were all so baptized with the Holy Ghost, his invisible presence being testified by 
the appearance of tongues of fire. Fire is the especial symbol of energy and enthusiasm. It 
is with this divine energy that God has accomplished his great work of redemption. By it (the 
Holy Spirit) Christ was incarnated, offered himself up a sacrifice for our sins and was raised 
again from the dead. He now carries on his work from heaven with the same energy or power 
with which he did his mighty works while on earth. By it he regenerates and sanctifies his 
people; by it he breathes power upon and into his people, enabling them to preach the Gospel 
and finish his work upon the earth. By it Christians are enabled to pray, to walk and to work 
for God; and without this heavenly fire, the Holy Ghost, it is all in vain that we seek to 
worship him. 

The symbolism of “strange fire” is, of course, what we have already hinted at — the 
denial of the supernatural, the quenching of the Holy Spirit, and the substitution of natural 
energy in the worship and work of God for the supernatural Spirit. It was for this that Nadab 
and Abihu were so summarily punished; it is for the same offense under the wide and blessed 
dispension of the Spirit that death comes so often and so terribly to our churches. It is true, 
that God does not now consume men who deny the supernatural and substitute natural energy 
for the Spirit’s power, as he did those offending, disobedient, and presumptuous priests at the 
beginning, but he does leave them dead while they seem to live. Hence, we have dead men 
in the pulpit, dead teachers before their Sunday classes; dead office-bearers in the church; 
dead worshipers in the pews; dead works everywhere, because the Holy Spirit is ignored and 
religion is attempted in the energy of the flesh alone. 

The terrible severity of the punishment which fell upon Nadab and Abihu may to some 
seem harsh and unmerciful. But not so. God was inaugurating a system of worship which 
was to lead that whole people up to life, and was at the same time pointing out the way in 
which he would save the world. It was absolutely necessary that at the very outset the people 
should be impressed with the great fact that they were dealing with God and not man; that 
obedience to God was the very first thing to be observed; and, therefore, that any contempt 
of his ordinances or disobedience to his commands would mean death. God has mercifully 
placed such beacon lights at the threshold of and all along every new and forward development 
of revelation and redemption. Thus, he caused Achan and his household to be slain for their 


1 Exodus iii. 


2 II. Chronicles vii, 1. 


3 Malachi iii, 1, 2. 




MOUNT HOR FROM CLIFFS PETRA. 




















330 


JUSTICE OF DIVINE SEVERITY. 


covetous tlieft of the wedge of gold and the Babylonish garment from the spoils of Jericho, 
which had been solemnly consecrated to God. 1 Thus he smote down those presumptuous people 
who would pry into the Ark, and Uzzah who put forth his hands to steady it, which he had 
commanded them not to do. 2 Thus he smote King Uzziah, whose heart “ was strong and lifted 
up,” and who transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple to burn incense 
before the Lord, and thus presumptuously sought to usurp the office of the priest. “ Then 
Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with 
the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, 
from beside the incense altar.” Thus the Lord smote him with a foul leprosy for his disobe¬ 
dience and sacrilege, “ and Uzziah the king was a leper until the day of his death, and dwelt 
in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord.” 3 How King 
Saul lost his kingdom through deliberate disobedience, and how Ananias and Sappliira were cut 
down in an instant, because of their covetous practice and for lying to the Holy Ghost, is also 
well known to the reader. Thus God teaches by this great and terrible severity that he is a 
Holy God and will be sanctified by the people and before the people, not out of any 
tyrannical whim, as do some earthly monarchs, but because the salvation of the people depends 
upon their obedience to the law of righteousness. It is so under the Gospel as it was under the 
Law. If men died without mercy under Moses’ law at the mouth of two or three witnesses, how 
much sorer shall be the punishment of those under the Gospel who trample under foot the Son 
of God, count the blood of the covenant wherewith they are sanctified an unholy thing, and 
do despite to the Holy Ghost! 4 Truly it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living 
God, for he “is a consuming fire” wherever sin and disobedience are persisted in. From all 
this severity we learn that it is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to go contrary to 
his express commands. We have to do with a God who is used to prescribe his own Worship, 
not arbitrarily, but in love, grace, and wisdom—just to require what he has prescribed, and 
powerful to avenge what he has not prescribed. “ Behold therefore the goodness and severity 
of God: on them which fell [through disobedience and unbelief], severity; but toward thee, 
goodness, if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise, thou also shalt be cut off.” 5 

1 Joshua vii, 16-26. 2 1. Samuel vi, 19, 20; IT. Samuel vi, 7. 3 II. Chronicles xxvi, 16-21. 

4 Hebrews xii, 25-29. 5 Romans xi, 22. 



AC’HAN’S PUNISHMENT. 










CHAPTER IX. 

THE LAW OF OFFERINGS. 


r PHE Book of Leviticus is divided into four parts. Part First, chapters i-vii, is devoted to 
J- the law of offerings, or sacrifices as we often call them; Part Second, chapters viii-x, to the 
institution of the priesthood; Part Third, chapters xi-xxii, to moral and ceremonial unclean¬ 
ness, its removal and punishment; Part Fourth, chapters xxiii-xxvii, to the institution of 
solemn feasts, and various other laws, exhortations, and promises. For the present we have to 
do with the first part, which relates to the principal and great offerings ordained by God for the 
worship and sanctification of the people. Having caused the tabernacle to he built in which he 
took up his dwelling amongst the people and made all ceremonial provisions for a proper and 
intelligent approach to him in solemn worship, obviously the next thing to be done was to 
institute by ordination the sacrifices or offerings which were to he made. Hitherto a single 
offering had been made, namely, an offering of blood or life, which was for sin rather than for 
worship; but now the time had come when the offerings should he clearly defined as to their 
significance and object. 

1. Looking at the offerings as a whole we perceive that there are five: the Burnt Offering, 
the Meat Offering, the Peace Offering, the Sin Offering, and the Trespass Offering. These 
belong really to two groups. The first three are “ offerings of a sweet smell,” and were offered 
on the brazen altar within the court of the tabernacle, and, as we shall presently see, had in 
them no suggestion of sin. In this particular they differed from the Sin and Trespass Offer¬ 
ings, which were burned outside the camp, and were not offerings of a sweet smell. Different 
words are used to designate the burning of either class of offerings. The one used in case of 
the “ offerings of a sweet smell ” indicates acceptance, the other indicates wrath. The meaning 
of this will become apparent as we examine them in their order. 

2. The next thing to be observed is, that these five offerings, taken together, represent the 
entire ministry of Christ for us, in his great work of redemption. The Israelites probably saw 
this dimly, and only the most spiritual of them discerned even so much. But we need only to 
read the Epistle to the Hebrews to understand clearly the typical and symbolical meaning of 
these offerings. The tenth chapter of Hebrews undoubtedly had these five offerings in view, 
speaking of them as a whole. They were the “ shadows of good things to come and not the 
very substance.” Christ is the true substance of these shadows which were cast before him as 
he approached, in time, the earth and the place of man’s sin, moving forth “ from the bosom of 
the Father.” 

3. The five offerings, taken separately, represent various aspects of the work of Christ. 
No one offering or sacrifice could possibly do that. Therefore, there are here represented five 
phases of his work, {a) In the burnt offering we shall see an offering without sin, given 
or offered to God. In this offering man had no part. It was offered wholly to God. This 
sets forth the truth that God requires of a man a whole and complete obedience or offering up 
of himself. In fact, this offering presents to us Christ entirely meeting and satisfying the first 
table of the Law : “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” The meat offering- 
differed from the burnt offering in that, while it was also offered unto the Lord, it was only 
partly consumed and the rest was eaten by the priests. The substance of this offering was 
altogether different. In the burnt offering a life was offered; in the meat offering food was 
offered—flour, frankincense, green ears of corn, and oil. This was, in fact, an offering made 


331 


332 


OFFERINGS OF THE TABERNACLE. 


to God for man’s sake. In other words, it was that phase of our Lord’s work in which he 
perfectly met the requirements of the second table of the Law : “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
as thyself.” The peace offering sets forth the idea of perfect reconciliation and fellowship 
between God and man. A part was offered to God; the rest was eaten by the priests and the 
offerer. Coming to the sin and trespass offerings, we see an entirely different aspect of Christ’s 
work. Here we deal with sin. The first, the sin offering, recognizes the sinfulness of our 
nature, while the second, the trespass offering, represents the sins or transgressions of the life. 
Both natural and actual sins had to be atoned for, and they were so atoned for by the offerings 
of the proper victims “ outside the camp ” while the blood was sprinkled before the Lord and 
poured out at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering. I append the following diagram 
that the reader may better understand these various offerings: 


Names. 

Sacrifice Offered. 

Disposition of. 

Typical Teachings. 

Burnt Offering. 

Bullock, sheep, goat, dove or 
pigeon. 

Wholly consumed. 

Entire surrender to God. 
Fulfillment of First Table. 
Fulfillment of the Law. 

Meat Offering. 

Flour, oil, frankincense. 

Part only consumed; the 
rest eaten by priests. 

Pure and holy walk 
amongst men. The ful¬ 
fillment of the Second 
Table of the Law. 

Peace Offering. 

Sheep, lamb, goat. 

Fat only consumed; rest 
eaten by offerer and 
priest. 

Peace, Reconciliation, Fel¬ 
lowship. 

Sin Offering. 

Bullock, goat, lamb, turtle¬ 
doves, flour. 

Fat consumed; rest burned 
outside the camp. 

Perfect sacrifice for sin. 
No condemnation to the 
offerer. 

Trespass Offering. 

Ram, money, compensation. 

Fat consumed; rest of ram 
eaten by the priests. 

Restitution and confession 
of sin. 


4. The next thing to be noted is the order in which these offerings are set forth. If 
we contemplate Christ coming forth from the tabernacle to us, we see him first in the burnt 
offering, fulfilling man’s perfect duty to God. Then we see him in the next offering perfectly 
fulfilling man’s duty to man. Then, in the peace offering we see how these two offerings have 
made the basis of a perfect fellowship between God and man. Next we see him in the sin 
offering, putting away sin by the sacrifice of himself. In the trespass offering we see him the 
constant Advocate with the Father, by reason of his atoning sacrifice for our transgressions. 
“ If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” On 
the other hand, if we consider the offerings as the way of our approach to God, we start from 
outside the camp, first confessing our sins, then our sin (the sinfulness of our nature)—this 
brings us into peace with both God and man (the peace offering); then, at the meat offering 
we take up and discharge our duties to our neighbor, and the consummation of our life is in the 
burnt offering where we present our “ bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which 
is ” our “ reasonable service.” 

5. Finally, for general consideration, we must keep in mind that the sacrifice or offering, 
the offerer, and the priest, are all types of Christ. He is the offering, he is the offerer, and he 
is the priest—that is, he is all these to us. We accept him as our representative and substitute. 
What can we offer but himself? who can offer for us but himself? and how can we come except 
in him ? Thus is “ Christ all and in all.” There are many details which we must omit and 
be content with an outline study. 

The Burnt Offering. For the details of this great offering, reference is made to 
Leviticus, chapter i. It is both interesting and singularly comforting to notice the place from 
which the Lord gave these special directions to Moses. “ The Lord called unto Moses, and 












THE BURNT OFFERING. 


333 


spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation.” Hitherto all God’s commands had 
been spoken from the Mount of Sinai: the place of fire, and blackness, and tempest, and cloud. 
But now how different the circumstances! “From the fiery mount went the fiery law,” but 
here, from the tabernacle, we hear the Lord speaking, not of law, but of grace. Here he had 
taken up his abode and dwelt among “ a stiff-necked people,” only to recover them from sin by 
atonement, and not to destroy them under law. It is true that God is just as holy in the 
tabernacle as he was on the mount. But there his holiness was manifested only in connection 
with the holy law; while here, though relaxing his holiness not a whit, he manifests it in 
connection “with the perfect grace which characterizes the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 
our Lord.” It is one thing to hear God speaking to us from the mount in the midst of a fire 
that consumes, and quite another to hear him speak to us from a tabernacle surrounded with all 
the provisions of grace and the means for putting away sin—in fact, from a mercy seat upon 
which the blood of acceptable sacrifice has been sprinkled. “ The law was given by Moses, but 
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” God speaking from the tabernacle to the children 
of Israel was the same to them as when, in these last days, God has spoken to us by his Son. 
There they “beheld him full of grace and truth,” even as we do in the face of Jesus Christ. 1 

It is necessary to rememember that this offering refers, in the first place, to the Lord Jesus 
Christ. He is seen in it as offerer, sacrifice, and priest for us. That is, we identify ourselves 
with him by offering or laying our hands upon him, claiming him as ours, and standing with 
him as he stands for us. 

The Offering. “ Let him offer a male without blemish.” This was the first consideration 
in all the offerings. Viewed in respect to our Lord Jesus, it points out to us that, before he 
could make an offering acceptable to God, he must be without sin. “ He was holy, harmless, 
and separate from sinners”—“a lamb without spot or blemish.” There was no fault found 
in him by God, and no fault found in him by men, though they found fault with him. Satan 
himself came searching him, and trying him with “ all manner of temptations,” but “ found 
nothing in him ” upon which he might lay any “ accusation ” against him, or on account of 
which he could impeach his holiness and righteousness before God. He “ always pleased the 
Father.” There are several interesting particulars noted in the second section of the text, 
where the work of the priest is described in making the offering, (a) “And they shall flay thy 
burnt offering ” — that is, take the skin off. This act revealed the perfect health and absolute 
spotlessness of the offering,, within as well as without. Our Lord was not only perfect in his 
outward life, but there was no imperfection hidden in him. ( b ) “And they shall cut it in 
pieces.” Here its perfections are seen in every part. Not only was it without blemish as a 
whole, but taken piece by piece there was no fault in it. Each several act of Christ was as 
perfect as the sum of his whole life. There were no “buts” or “ifs” about him. As the 
bullock was perfect in its head, perfect in its legs, perfect in the inwards and fat of its whole 
being, so was Christ in thought, in walk, and in the secret energy of his being, (c) “ His 
inwards and his legs shall they wash with water.” This was a further search after blemishes. 
“ Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts.” There is more difficulty in discovering sin 
in the inward parts of a man than in his outward parts — that is, it is more difficult to detect 
motive than it is to discover action. Therefore, were the inward parts and the legs washed with 
water. This action also rendered the offering ceremonially clean (as it was actually clean). 
When the leper was cleansed, he was washed to declare him clean. So this offering, having 
been searched in every part, was thus declared to be perfectly clean, and without the taint of 
evil about it. ( d ) It was a voluntary act. There was no compulsion on the part of the offerer 
to make this offering. This is fundamental in considering the sacrifice of Christ for us. “ He 
gave himself,” and “through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.” 2 No man 


1 John i, 14. 


2 Galatians ii, 20; Hebrews ix, 14. 



334 


CHRIST THE TRUE BURNT OFFERING. 


took liis life from him. “ I have power to lay it [his life] down, and I have power to take it 
again.” 1 It was his delight, in the matter of redeeming sinners, to do the will of God. 2 The 
voluntary act of Christ in giving himself up to God for the salvation of sinners constitutes no 
small part of the value of the sacrifice—indeed, it was essential to any value at all. What a 
glorious sight it is to the believer to stand at the foot of the cross, and behold Christ, not as a 
sin offering, hut only accomplishing the will of God, and delighting to do so, rendering to him 
a voluntary obedience even unto the death, because as man he owed that to God, withholding 
no part of his being from him! What a contrast this to the first Adam, and to all men since 
then! In this voluntary act of Christ, he tells out to God his own deep love to him, apart 
entirely from the chief end of his mission. There was a profound and unbroken communion 
between Jesus and the Father in all the work he did. When our salvation is completed, and 
worked out in us, it will be so, also, with us. All duty will be lost in love, and all service will 
be the highest pleasure. 

The Offering in Respect to God. It was a whole burnt offering. In this offering every¬ 
thing was given to God. The priest who offered it had no lot nor part in it, as far as their 
usual portion was concerned. Here we see Christ fulfilling the first table of the decalogue: 
“ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” And here all was given to God — 
the head, the legs, the inwards, and the fat, or, as has been suggested, the mind, the walk, the 
heart, and the energy of them all. It was to this offering that the apostle alluded when he 
exhorted the Romans, “ by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, 
holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” “ It was an offering made by fire 
of a sweet savor unto the Lord.” I have already pointed this out as peculiar to the first three 
offerings. This offering lay upon that brazen altar (as incense lay upon the golden altar) inside 
the tabernacle, and was received as incense with a sweet smell by God. He was pleased and 
delighted with it. There is no expiation of sin here; only perfect obedience on the part of the 
offerer. And shall we not gladly delight in the work of Christ in this respect ? Shall we only 
consider his work from our own selfish point of view, and love him only because he puts away 
our sin ? He is the holy and perfectly obedient Son before he becomes our “ servant ” in 
redemption. Is there not in him, in this respect, that which calls out our highest adoration, 
and strongest affections, as well as when we view him as our sin offering, burning under the 
wrath of God’s holy justice — a being dealt with as the sinner’s substitute? Here he is, the 
sinner’s model and pattern, the firstborn among the many brethren whom he will finally bring 
to glory as whole and complete as himself. Our Lord begins his work on the cross as a whole 
burnt offering — an offering of a sweet smell; he ends it as sin and trespass offering. We first 
apprehend Christ as trespass offering; then as sin offering; then, as we go farther on with him, 
we apprehend him as our peace offering; then as our meat offering, and, finally, we know him 
as our whole burnt offering. As we thus go on, growing “in grace and in the knowledge of our 
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” we may hope some day to stand before God ourselves, purged 
of all sin, “without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,” whole burnt offerings ourselves, 
offerings of sweet smell to God. 

The Offering in Respect to the Offerer. We have seen that this offering was made wholly 
to God, as an expression of perfect love and perfect obedience, keeping back no part and giving 
even the very life, in the blood that was sprinkled on the altar. We have now to notice two 
particulars in which the offerer himself is said to be benefited by his offering, (a) “ And it 
shall be accepted for him.” This is not to be understood in a vicarious sense. The meaning 
here is that his offering shall be accepted. Now, sinee there is no offering for or acknowledg¬ 
ment of sin in this offering, but only an offering of “ a sweet savor unto the Lord,” the question 
arises: Can any man come into the presence of God and offer himself wholly to him, and be 


1 John x, 18. 


“Hebrews x. 



THE MEAT OFFERING. 


335 


accepted ? Certainly this cannot be true of any man of Adam’s sinful race; but it was true of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the Father twice said: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased.” He lived out his perfect life, and at last came before his Father and offered 
himself, longing to be accepted; and he was accepted. Concerning ourselves, our hope is that 
we may be and are “ accepted in the beloved ” now, and shall be, by and by, presented to the 
Father “without spot or wrinkle,” and “faultless before the presence of his glory with 
exceeding joy.” We may well bless God that Jesus was able, in the likeness of our sinful flesh, 
to make a perfect and acceptable offering to God of himself, even after his fearful trials under 
the law and under the stress of Satan’s power. This is the first part of our completed redemp¬ 
tion. His acceptance with God as a perfect man sets him, the man Christ Jesus, on high, and 
enables us to see the possibility — nay, the absolute certainty — of our final place with him in 
the glory, (b) “ And it shall be to make atonement for him.” This expression naturally leads 
the superficial reader to doubt what I have previously said, that in this offering there is no 
suggestion of sin, either in acknowledgment of sin, or in expiation of it. A closer study of it, 
however, establishes, rather than undermines, the view I have taken. Granting that the word 
atonement in the Old Testament always carries with it the idea of making satisfaction, we still 
have no difficulty. God may be satisfied in two ways—that is, there is in God’s sight more than 
one matter about which to be satisfied. His loving and holy requirements under the law may 
be satisfied, or his offended justice may be satisfied. In the burnt offering we see the former 
satisfaction rendered to God, and this is testified by the savor of the sweet smell. Jesus, in 
offering himself to God without spot or blemish in character or act, perfectly satisfied, or atoned, 
the loving requirements of God from man under the law. This he did before rendering that 
other satisfaction or atonement for our sin and transgression, when he offered himself alike as 
sin and trespass offering. Thus we may read the clause. This offering was accepted in order 
that he might make the other atonement of satisfaction. This brings out a line of truth which 
is most precious to all believers who have desired to look into the glorious mystery of our 
redemption. 

Such is the teaching of the burnt offering in its principal features. How gladly do we 
come to Jesus Christ and recognize in him the Voluntary Man who came to our world and to 
our race to make, on our behalf, perfect satisfaction to God in respect of our obedience. 

The Meat Offering. For the account of the institution of the Meat Offering the reader 
is referred to the second chapter of Leviticus. I have endeavored to set forth some of the main 
features of the burnt offering — enough to put the reader in possession of its chief typical 
significance. The space at my disposal does not allow a full exposition of these interesting and 
important ceremonial offerings, but, even briefly as I shall have to discuss the balance of them, 
no doubt sufficient can be said to set the meaning of each clearly before the reader and, I trust, 
to induce him to pursue the subject farther for himself. The variety in the victims and 
material offered I do not discuss, as these are not material to the chief teaching contained in the 
various offerings. Before entering upon the details of the meat offering, it may be well to call 
attention again to the fact that all these offerings represent and typify the work of our Lord 
Jesus Christ for us, and in each feature — that is, alike as offering, offerer, and priest — we are 
first of all to see him. It is as we appropriate him, that we are united to him in all that 
he does. In the burnt offering we see him fulfilling the requirements of the first table of the 
L aw — that is, loving God with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and making that love mani¬ 
fest in the entire surrender of himself to God in perfect obedience. In the meat offering we 
shall see him perfectly fulfilling the second table of the Law — that is, loving his neighbor 
as himself, and rendering to him a perfect love and service. 

1. The material used in this offering is not life as we see in the burnt offering, but the 
fruit of the ground — flour, oil, and frankincense. These are the food of man. We may, 


336 


TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 


therefore, expect to see man having some portion — even the chief portion — of this offering. 
“ And the remnant of the meat offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’.” Our Lord had to 
fulfill the whole law in its righteous requirements before he could enter upon his redemptive or 
atoning work as the sin bearer. That is, he must offer to God a perfect life, wholly surrendered 
in obedience; then he must, as man also, give to his fellow man a perfect brotherly service. 
When God created man he gave for his meat, “ every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face 
of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is a fruit of the tree yielding seed.” 1 This, then, 
is man’s portion, the “ meat offering.” At the same time God has forbidden man to eat blood, 
for that “ the life is in the blood,” and God’s portion in creation is the life. When our Lord 
was on earth going about doing good, healing and blessing all who had need of him, he was 
offering to God on our behalf the meat offering. Had Christ only offered to God a perfect 
obedience he would have satisfied God apart from man; but this would not have sufficed, for 
God has identified himself with man and so man must have his portion. God will not accept 
his own portion without also seeing that man, his creature, has his. On the other hand, had 
Christ only given himself up to the service of man and made no offering to God, this would 
have been to rob and dishonor God. So it was that the burnt offering and the meat offering 
were always offered together. 2 The meat offering was the complement of the burnt offering; 
they belonged to each other. No service offered to God which does not include good will to 
man is acceptable with him; on the other hand, no devotion to man which ignores God is 
acceptable. Cornelius the centurion seemed to have a true conception of that which was fitting 
in the service of God. His “ prayers ” and “ his alms went up for a memorial before God.” 
Thus he offered in spirit both the burnt and the meat offering and they are called a memorial, 
the very word that is used in connection with these offerings. “ And the priest shall burn the 
memorial of it upon the altar.” 

2. In the various substances used in this offering we note, first, the flour, which is the 
proper food for man. This flour also sets forth to us how Christ is our true bread; the 
grinding of the corn, in order to its proper use as food for man, points to the breaking of 
Christ’s body, while the baking of the flour with fire points to his sufferings for us. He has 
given to us his broken body for bread. The oil suggests the Holy Spirit with which our 
Lord was anointed, and in the power of which he lived his life among men and wrought all 
his mighty works. The frankincense, that most perfect of all perfumes, indicates how sweet 
the whole service rendered by our Lord was to God. It is noticed that the frankincense was 
burnt with the memorial on the altar and did not pass to Aaron and his sons. The frank¬ 
incense made the odor of the sweet smell. No leaven or honey was permitted in any meat 
offering, as the one was the type of sin and the other of things sweet, indeed, but liable to 
ferment and turn sour. On the other hand, every meat offering was to be mingled with salt. 3 
Salt, as we know, was the symbol of grace, and of that which preserves and keeps. Therefore, 
we are exhorted to season our conversation with salt. 4 Thus we see how perfect was our Lord’s 
offering. The flour was fine, the oil was of the best, the frankincense of the sweetest, no leaven 
or honey in it, and the whole seasoned with salt. 

3. We note in the second place that the meat offering was one of the “sweet savor 
offerings” made to the Lord. That is to say, there was no suggestion of sin or the putting 
away of sin in it. It simply represented Christ perfectly fulfilling man’s duty to man. 

4. This Offering was not Wholly Burnt. A part was offered to the Lord by fire, but the 
greater portion of it was consumed by Aaron and his sons. The symbolism is simply this: in 
our relations to man we also have relations with God. The difference between philanthropy 
and Christian charity is this, that philanthropy simply recognizes man’s need and our obliga¬ 
tion. God is excluded. But Christian charity teaches that no perfect good can be done to man 


1 Genesis i, 29. 


2 Numbers xxviii, 12,13, xxix, 3, 4. 


3 Leviticus ii, 11-13. 


4 Colossians iv, 6. 



THE PEACE OFFERING. 


337 


that is not first offered to God. We love our brother, and seek to serve him, because of the 
love which God hath to us, and we offer our service to him on the altar of our devotion to our 
God. In the much-vaunted religion of the Buddhist we behold service to man but no recogni¬ 
tion of God—no offering to him in our offering to man. Any separation of duty to God and 
to man is fatal to both services. They stand and fall together. 

5. The Meat Offering was Eaten by the Priest and His Sons. No doubt these represent 
both the servants and the sons of God, who both worship and serve him. To them Christ 
our Lord is meat, indeed, and we in our measure are also to be meat to each other. We 
are, therefore, exhorted, as we have “ opportunity,” to “ do good unto all men, especially unto 
them who are of the household of faith.” With these very brief remarks we must leave the 
meat offering and pass on to the consideration of the peace offering, the third in the series of 
“offerings of a sweet smell.” 

The Peace Offering. This, as already remarked, was “a sweet savor” offering like 
the burnt and meat offering, and so with them stands in contrast with the sin and trespass offer¬ 
ings. The point of most importance, however, in this offering is that God, the priests, and the 
offerer all had a part. God had his portion ; 1 the offerer had his portion ; 2 and the priest and 
his sons had their portion. 3 If our Lord is seen in the high priest, and the priest’s sons stand 
for the Church — and that is our title as believers — then we see a perfect communion between 
all the parties concerned in the offering. In the former offering there was no participation on 
the part of the offerer in so far as eating a portion of the offerings was concerned. In the 
burnt offering God had the whole. In the meat offering God had his portion and the high 
priest and his sons had the rest. But in this offering we see God, the high priest and his sons, 
and the offerer each having a portion. When our Lord satisfied God with respect to the first 
table of the Law, and then satisfied man (through God) with respect to the second table of the 
Law, we are not surprised to find a third offering in which Christ is represented as bringing 
about perfect communion between God, himself (the high priest), and the man on whose behalf 
the offerings are all made. 

Taken together, the three offerings “ of a sweet smell ” show us a perfect reconciliation or 
rather union between God and man, brought about by the work of our Lord Jesus Christ— 
man communing with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, who, as our High Priest, has 
offered up to God for us his own body, with all its wealth of life. This is a much higher 
truth to apprehend than that which is shown in the sin and trespass offerings. There we find 
man reconciled to God on the ground of the remission of sins. But here we find man 
rejoicing, not simply in the remission of sins and the avoiding of the consequences of sin, but 
rejoicing in God and in Christ. Here there is no question of sin, but just communion. When 
we learn how to ground our communion with God on himself alone, and not on the mere 
deliverance from wrath, we shall reach a much higher spiritual life. The sin and trespass 
offerings are absolutely acceptable, and to know Christ in these relations is most precious; but 
after passing these we should come to the three offerings of a sweet smell in order to come into 
the sphere of perfect spiritual communion. Our religious experience is found in the apprehen¬ 
sion of God in Christ, and in all the high and blessed offices he fulfills for us. This I cannot 
emphasize too strongly, inasmuch as so many Christians are seeking spiritual experiences in 
some kind of effort to arouse their emotions, whereas experience depends entirely upon our right 
apprehension of Christ, and our position in him, and so of our proper relation to God and man. 

The Sin and Trespass Offerings. For information concerning this group of offerings 
the reader is referred to Leviticus, chapters iv-vi. We must treat of these two offerings very 
briefly. As the first three offerings formed the group of sweet savor offerings, so these two 
stand by themselves and are offerings without a sweet savor. The first three had no suggestion 


1 Leviticus iii, 5. 


2 Leviticus vii, 16. 


3 Leviticus vii, 31, 32. 



338 


SIN AND TRESPASS OFFERINGS. 


of sin in connection with them and, therefore, the offerer and his offerings were for acceptance; 
whereas, in both these offerings we find sin, confessed, judged, expiated, and pardoned. The 
further details will be pointed out as far as the main features are concerned. 

Let us go back to the Law for a moment, in order to show the connection between these 
offerings and that great revelation of God’s righteousness. The first table of the Law required 
perfect obedience to God. “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” The second table of the Law, 
summed up in the words of our Savior, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” is no less a 
part of our obedience to God, for God is the protector and defender of all men, and he exacts 
and demands that every man shall be true to all his human as to his divine relations and 
obligations. To refuse what is meet and due from us to each other is to refuse what is due 
from us to God on man’s behalf. So great and good is God in his Creator-Fatherhood to all 
men, however untrue and disobedient they may be to him. Every man is God’s man and, 
therefore, every sin or trespass of one man against another is a sin and trespass against God. 
It was this truth, deeply impressed by conviction on the heart and conscience of David, that 
led him, in confessing his sin against the Hittite, to cry out to God: “Against thee, thee only, 
have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.” 1 To show, therefore, the double obligation 
which every Israelite owed to Jehovah under the law of perfect righteousness, the burnt 
offering and the meat offering were instituted. These offerings were made on the brazen 
altar at the door of the tabernacle and were “for his acceptance”—that is, to show that his 
offering and, therefore, himself, was accepted of God. It was, therefore, “ an offering of a sweet 
savor unto the Lord.” In addition, he brought his meat offering, which showed his obligation 
to his fellow man, and offered it likewise through the priest on the brazen altar. It was 
accepted as an offering of a sweet smell. The result of these two offerings is set forth in 
the third, the peace offering, in which is shown (God having had his perfect portion in the 
burnt offering and man his perfect portion in the meat offering) how, where the whole law is 
fulfilled, both Godward and manward, there is perfect communion and peace. The peace 
offering, therefore, complements and completes the symbolism of the two former offerings. 

We come now to offerings totally different in their character as to method, place, and 
intent. If the burnt and meat offerings represented the actual facts in the case of man, as they 
did in the case of Jesus the Antitype of these offerings — that is, if man were perfect in respect 
of the requirements of both tables of the Law—then there would have been no need of sin and 
trespass offerings, for there would have been no sin and no trespass. But since man has sinned 
and failed, both in obedience to God and in his righteous obligation to his fellow man, there 
must be some way in which he can come to God in peace, else he must forever be excluded from 
all communion with God and forever bear the curse and wrath of the broken Law. In these 
two offerings, as in the former three, we see Jesus offering himself in man’s stead, here not as a 
sacrifice for acceptance, “ a sacrifice of sweet smell,” but, outside the camp, for expiation of sin. 

1. The Sin Offering. We notice in the first place (a) that the sin offered for in this 
offering is what is called the sin of ignorance, the sin that lies deeper than the human 
conscience. This is the sin of the nature, that inherent sin of which we are ignorant as a 
personal act, but which God sees and knows and which is pointed out to us by the Law, and, 
indeed, may only be thus known. “ By the law is the knowledge of sin.” It is the sin of the 
heart out of which proceeds evil thoughts, etc. We constantly hear men saying that they are not 
responsible for, or conscious of, what is sometimes called Adam’s sin or the natural depravity of 
the nature. But God sees that and has pointed it out to us, and as we get on in the knowledge 
of God and of self, this sinfulness of nature is oftentimes a deeper grief than that of mere trans¬ 
gression. When David’s great sin was brought home to his conscience by the reproof of Nathan 


Psalm li, 4. 



THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST FORESHADOWED. 


339 


the prophet, and he came to confession, he perceived that his transgression in the matter of the 
Hittite was an ultimate consequence of a sinful nature out of which came his wicked trans¬ 
gression. Therefore, he confesses before God that sin: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and 
in sin did my mother conceive me.” 1 This is, also, what the lament of Jeremiah meant when 
he said, “ The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it ? I 
the Lord search the heart, I try the reins.” 2 Of the same John speaks when he says: “ If we 
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” This is in contrast 
to the next verse but one where he says : “ If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a 
liar, and his word is not in us.” 3 This is a distinction everywhere maintained in the Scripture. 
It is, therefore, for “sin” that Christ, the true Sin Offering, first makes provision. When he 
was first introduced to the world by the Baptist, it was in these words: “ Behold the Lamb of 
God, which taketh away the sin of the world” 4 —not our sins. It is necessary to keep this 
distinction in mind in order to understand these offerings and rightly to appreciate the perfect 
work of Christ of which they are the types. ( b) It will be noticed that this sin offering was to 
be made alike for the priest, for the congregation, for the rulers, and for the common people, 
and for each man severally; showing that, without regard to any known or conscious trans¬ 
gression, all men were sinners, even though they were ignorant of it when tried by the law 
of conscience, (c) The offering in this case for the priest and the congregation was a young 
bullock ; for a ruler it was a kid of the goats, a male without blemish; for one of the common 
people it must be a female of either of the goats or of the flock; or, if any were too poor to 
offer a kid of the goats or of the flock, a turtledove or a handful of fine flour. The living 
sacrifices were slain and their blood sprinkled before the Lord. 

Even when the offering was of flour, the very fact of its being flour shows that it involved 
suffering or death by means of the grinding. “ Without the shedding of blood there is no 
remission.” ( d) In making this offering the priest, either for himself, for the congregation, or 
for the individual, ruler, or common man, caused -the offerer to place his hands on the head of 
the victim and there by implication confess and transfer his sin to his “ sin offering ” or “ sin 
bearer,” which was to be slain for him. ( e ) This offering was slain, but was not burnt upon the 
brazen altar where the sweet savor offerings were presented, but the carcass was carried “ with¬ 
out the camp where the ashes were poured out and burnt with fire on a clean spot of earth.” 
In this we see clearly, in the light of the inspired commentary, what was meant. “ For the 
bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin are 
burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his 
own blood, suffered without the gate.” 5 This passage settles the ultimate meaning of the sin 
offering. (/) The blood of the victim was carried by the high priest and sprinkled before the 
Lord — that is, seven times before the veil which covered the Holy of Holies. Though the 
offering was burnt outside the camp to show God’s detestation of sin, the blood was offered to 
God as an atonement for it. ( g) That the offering in any case was to be without blemish is the 
setting forth of the deep and precious truth always preserved in these ceremonials, that when 
Christ the true Offerer and Offering came he would be a sinless sacrifice, though made to “ be 
sin for us.” Had there been so much as a single sinful word or thought in Jesus, he never 
could have become the sin offering for his people. And yet how solemn it is that, when he went 
forth outside the camp, his offering sinless, and well beloved as he was, he was not received 
as one of a sweet smell! On the contrary, as the sin offering of old was cast out as something 
to be loathed, and hated, and burnt on the ground, so was he. Deserted by friends, surrounded 
by enemies who heaped every reproach upon him, he was even forsaken by God; hence that 
bitter and awful cry: “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ” The answer is: 
“ Because thou art made sin for the people, and as such must bear their shame and reproach as 


1 Psalm li, 5. 


2 Jeremiah xvii, 9, 10. 


3 1. John i, 8, 10. 


4 John i, 29. 


5 Hebrews xiii, 11, 12. 



340 


THE TRESPASS OFFERING —RESTITUTION. 


their penalties, as well as feel the abhorrence of God, who hates sin with a perfect hatred and 
cannot look upon it.” (h) In this offering there is no acceptance with God by a sweet smell; 
there is no meting out of neighborly obligations to man; there is no sweet communion and 
feeding together as in the peace offering; for here sin was being dealt with, (i) The last 
thing to be noticed in this offering is that all the inward fat was taken away with the kidneys 
and offered or burnt on the altar of the burnt offering. This may be taken to indicate that the 
energy, health, and vigor of the whole were offered to God. That is, though the body of the 
sin offering was burnt without the camp, the person of the sacrifice in himself was accepted of 
God. Jesus, as the sin offering for his people, was cast out, but he himself was always beloved 
and accepted of God; and, indeed, the sacrifice which he made for atonement was offered to 
God, else it would not have availed for us. 

2. The Trespass Offering. We need not say much about this offering, not because it is of 
minor importance, but because its characteristic and meaning must be already clearly discerned 
from a consideration of the other offerings, (a) Like the sin offering, it differed from the first 
three, in that it was not an offering for a sweet smell, because in it we see sin being dealt with, 
and sin can never come up to God with pleasure and delight. ( b ) We notice that it differs 
from the sin offering in that it is for sins and not for sin — that is, this offering has to do not 
with the deep and hidden fountain of sin, but with the outcome of that fountain, with sins, or 
acts of transgression. These are defined as wrong done to God and wrong done to his 
neighbor. 1 It has been observed that in this offering no particular notice is taken of the 
person offering, but of the wrong thing done. In the sin offering we see the person dealt 
with—the priest, the congregation of Israel, the ruler, and the common person; but in this 
we have all the emphasis laid on the wrong thing or act done, whether in the matter of the 
“holy things of the Lord” or in the matter of “violent getting,” “deceitful taking,” or “swear¬ 
ing falsely about that which is found.” It is also remarked that every sinful act or wrong done 
to one’s neighbor is also counted as a wrong done to God. “Against thee, thee only, have I 
sinned, and done this evil in thy sight,” was David’s conception of a sinful action. The evil 
was done against his neighbor, but the sin of it was against God. There it must be atoned for. 
Jesus not only bore our sin, but he also bore our sius. “ He was wounded for our transgres¬ 
sions ” and “ bruised for our iniquities.” He “ bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” 
He was “ delivered for our offenses.” These passages point to sinful acts and atonement made 
for sins; while it is said that God “made him to be sin for us,” and that his soul was made “an 
offering for sin.” (c) Practically the same offering was made for trespasses or sins, as was made 
for sin. As a matter of fact, it was the same and treated in the same way, the whole difference 
lying in the distinction made between sinfulness of character and sinfulness of action. Both 
had to be and both were atoned for. (cl) There is a remarkable addition made in the require¬ 
ments of the man who offers for trespass, beyond that which is made for sin. The offering for 
sin recognizes only wrong being while the trespass offering notices wrong doing. There must, 
therefore, not only be confession and atonement made for wrong doing, but there must be 
money paid by way of restitution. “ He shall even restore it in the principal [that is, the 
thing in which he has defrauded his neighbor], and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and 
give it unto him to whom it appertained, in the day of his trespass offering.” 2 Notice that 
this restitution has to be made before the trespass offering is brought, and that a fifth part more 
has to be given. Here is a fine lesson. It is of no use for a transgressor who has wronged 
his neighbor to go to God for forgiveness, even though he confess his transgression and tres¬ 
pass, without first having made restitution. Zaccheus had learned this lesson. This was the 
fruit meet for repentance when he declared that if he found he had wronged anyone in the 
discharge of his duty as a publican, he restored to such an one fourfold. 3 It is not straining 


1 Leviticus v, 15-17,19. 


! Leviticus vi, 4, 5. 


1 Luke xix, 8 ; compare Exodus xxii, 1. 



THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION. 


341 


the Scriptures, in the light of all that might be brought to bear, to say that when Jesus, in his 
one offering which he made for us (in which was included all the five offerings), not only made 
up to God fourfold all the wrong which he had suffered by our sin, but also made up to us a 
thousandfold all we have suffered at the hands of all sinners, (e) The last remark about this 
offering is, that no matter what a man’s sins and transgressions were, if he brought the trespass 
offering, “the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven 
him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.” 1 How blessed this is! We 
cannot but turn to our great Trespass Offering and listen to these words. “ The blood of Jesus 

Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.If we confess our sins, he is faithful 

and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” For “we have an 
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 2 

Before leaving this subject, we must remind the reader again that these five offerings were 
five aspects of man’s jiosition before God for acceptance; that, it being impossible for him to 
fulfill these requirements himself, by reason of sin and “ weakness of the flesh,” he was 
permitted to do so by offerings, in which he was accounted as accepted. That these offerings, 
one and all, were fulfilled by Jesus Christ our Lord, as they pointed to him, is clearly seen by 
reading Hebrews x, in which these are shown to be but shadows, while Jesus is the true 
substance. As a matter of fact, Jesus has filled every function of these sacrifices or offerings 
for us, once for all, and by One offering. Yet these many-sided offerings in the ceremonial of 
Israel enable us to see how many-sided was the sacrifice of Christ. Approaching us from the 
tabernacle, we see him first as burnt offering, then as meat offering, and then as peace offering 
— all of which was the picture of his perfect obedience to God, his perfect service to man, and 
the perfect communion set up thereby. He is now enabled to turn to the sinner and bring him 
into the tabernacle to have all this holy communion in peace. First, he undertakes by the sin 
offering to deal with our sinful natures; then by the trespass offering to deal with our sinful 
actions; and all this he has done for us once for all, and there remaineth, therefore, “ no more 
offering for sin,” for the whole case has been met. Therefore, the writer of the Hebrews 
exhorts his readers, having explained the relation between the types and Christ himself, as 
follows: “ Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 
by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his 

flesh;.let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is 

faithful that promised.” 3 

It is full of interest, also, to observe that as the sinner approaches God the order of the 
offerings is reversed. Jesus appeared to us beginning with the burnt offering and ending with 
the sin and trespass offerings. But in our approach to God we pass back by the way lie came. 
The first thing an awakened sinner feels is the consciousness of his sins, his wrong doings; 
then he comes to know that wrong doing is the result of wrong being. When these two neces¬ 
sities are met by the blood of Christ, he passes on to communion through the peace offering; 
then to a high appreciation of his obligations to his brother whom he hath seen, and finally he 
attains to the rank of sonship when he offers himself to God, whom he hath not seen, in the 
burnt offering, which is his high and reasonable service. 4 These are the five foundation offer¬ 
ings. Every Christian and every intelligent student of the Bible should ponder them well. 


1 Leviticus vi, 


*1. John i, 7, 9, ii, 1. 


3 Hebrews x, 19-23. 


* Romans xii, 1-3. 




CHAPTER X. 


THE SEVEN GREAT FEASTS OF ISRAEL. 

T HE twenty-third chapter of Leviticus is one of the most interesting and significant in the 
books of the law, especially in respect of the ceremonial observances of Israel. In addi¬ 
tion to the celebration of the sabbath, 1 there are seven great feasts provided for, as follows: 
The Feast of the Passover; 2 of Unleavened Bread; 3 the First-Fruits; 4 the Pentecost; 5 the 
Feast of Trumpets ; 6 the Day of Atonement ; 7 the Feast of Tabernacles. 8 Beyond these seven, 
there is the great Year of Jubilee, an account of the establishment and significance of which we 
find in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus. Each of these feasts was deeply significant and 
had much to do with the development of the religious, social, and national life. They are all 
highly symbolic of great events and epochs of time in connection with the further unfolding of 
God’s purpose of redemption; and all of them are closely related to some phases of the redemp¬ 
tive work of our Lord. Our space does not permit of a full unfolding of these significant 
ceremonials, but we shall just glance at them in passing, and must be content with expatiating 
on the two most important ones, namely, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles, 
The Atonement is the foundation upon which everything rests as between God and man, and, 
indeed, between man and man; and the Feast of Tabernacles points to the millennial glory of 
God’s people. After these have been looked at somewhat in detail, we shall refer to the great 
feast of the Jubilee. 

It is scarcely necessary to note in particular the sabbath, which is so well understood as 
pointing to the final rest of God’s people founded on the finished work of Christ and into which 
“ we which believe do enter.” Jesus could only give us rest from our sins and all the unrest 
growing out of them by himself bearing them in his own body on the tree, where he “finished” 
the new creation and entered into rest through resurrection, as God finished the old creation 
and rested on the seventh day and hallowed it. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we have a 
reference to the sabbath which shows its chief symbolic significance so far as we are concerned. 9 

1. The Feast of the Passover. 10 This was to commemorate the deliverance of the children 
of Israel out of the hand of Pharaoh and out of the land of bondage, and from the judgment 
of God upon sin on the night when the firstborn ones were all slain in Egypt. That it has a 
special significance to us in Christ is seen in the fact that it was on the night of that feast that 
our Lord, the true Passover Lamb who was slain for us, 11 inaugurated the Lord’s Supper, which 
has ever since taken in the Christian Church the place of the passover feast among the Jews. 

2. The Feast of Unleavened Bread P This feast followed on the Feast of the Passover, 
and was designed to set forth the necessity of holiness in the people of God. The unleavened 
bread — that is bread made without leaven (always the type of sin in the Scriptures) — was the 
principal article of food during the feast. Reference to this feast, in its symbolic and doctrinal 
teaching, is seen in the New Testament. “ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may 
be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and 
wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” 13 

1 Leviticus xxiii, 3. 2 Ibid, 5. 3 Ibid, 6-8. * Ibid, 9-14. 5 Ibid, 15-21. 6 Ibid, 23-25. 

7 Ibid, 26-32. 8 Ibid, 33-43. 9 Hebrews iii, 11-19, iv, 1-11. 10 Leviticus xxiii, 4-5 ; compare with Exodus xii. 

11 1. Corinthians v, 7. 12 Leviticus xxiii, 6-8. 13 1. Corinthians v, 7, 8; compare Timothy ii, 19. 


342 




MINOR FEASTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE. 


343 


3. The Offering of the First Fruits In this celebration we have the significant teaching 
that the harvest about to be gathered and from which a first fruit was taken and waved before 
the Lord was his bountiful gift, and that the wave sheaf laid up before the Lord was the pledge 
and guarantee of the forthcoming harvest. Its symbolical reference is to the resurrection of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, who is a “kind of first fruit” of the people of God, “the firstborn among 
many brethren,” and the “ first fruits of them that slept.” 2 This is very beautiful; and just so 
far as we shall grasp the truth comprehended in it, we shall be always praising God for 
gathering out from among the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, who in his ascension was waved as 
a “ first fruit ” of the great harvest of redeemed men and women who shall be gathered when 
he comes the second time to gather in his harvest. 

4. The Feast of Pentecost . 3 This feast is also most significant in its symbolism. It was 
celebrated fifty days after the bringing of the wave sheaf to offer it before the Lord. Symbol¬ 
ically it refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the gathering of the Church of Jesus 
Christ. We read in the second chapter of Acts how the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the 
disciples and the people and the Church of the Firstborn was gathered in. This was the fulfill¬ 
ment of the feast of pentecost or, as it is sometimes called, the feast of weeks, Pentecost taking 
place fifty days after the resurrection, or the fulfilled symbol and type of the wave offering of 
the first fruits. The wave loaves, mixed with leaven, indicating the sinfulness of the people 
who were gathered into the Church on that occasion, but the lambs without blemish, with the 
young bullock and two rains, for a burnt offering, and also the kid of the goats for a sin 
offering, and the two lambs for a sacrifice of peace offering, show how God could and did 
receive sinners into his Church through the merits of Christ our perfect burnt offering and 
our sin offering, and bring all into peace. In no other way could a leavened loaf be accepted 
as a wave offering before the Lord. 

5. The Feast of Trumpets . 4 This feast of trumpets, which occurs after a considerable 
interval following the feast of pentecost and the gleaning of the fields by the poor and the 
strangers, is believed to point to the final gathering in of the scattered and dispersed — the 
spiritually blinded and wandering Jews — when the ransomed of the Lord shall return and 
come with everlasting joy upon their heads, and sorrow and crying shall flee away forever. 
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall 
come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, 
and shall worship the Lord in the holy Mount at Jerusalem.” 5 Space does not allow further 
reference to this significant feast and to the great truth which it points to of God’s faithfulness 
to his ancient covenant people, in preserving them through all their wanderings, and his calling 
them in at last and returning them to their land, when their iniquity shall be pardoned and 
they shall receive the double (or title deeds of their ancient possessions) in the land, all through 
the fountain opened in the house of Israel for all sin and uncleanness. 

The next two feasts, those of the great day of atonement and tabernacles, we shall now 
treat of more at length, as they are much more significant to us as pointing to that which is 
always present with us—the basis of our reconciliation with God and the coming glory of the 
Church. In connection with these elaborate ceremonials and feasts, it is only right to remark 
that it is more than probable that they were not all of them strictly carried out by the Hebrews. 
What commandment of God is, by men? We know that many of them lapsed and fell entirely 
into desuetude, and, perhaps, notably the feast of tabernacles, until after the return from 
Captivity, when it was restored and reestablished with great pomp by Nehemiah. The sabbath, 
the pentecost, the harvest, and atonement festivals were more or less faithfully kept. The point 
of view is not so much how faithfully these festivals were kept, but what did God intend they 


1 Leviticus xxiii, 9-14. 
5 Isaiah xxvii, 13. 


2 1. Corinthians xv, 15-20. 


3 Leviticus xxiii, 15-21. 


4 Leviticus xxiii, 24, 25. 



THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. 


344 

should signify to the Hebrews, and what place they should have in those significant symbolic 
prophecies which pointed to the coming and the work of Christ our Lord. It is easily seen that 
almost every phase of our salvation and eternal hope is typified Jn the offerings and feasts of 
Israel. The study of these types and shadows of good things to come, in connection with the 
first ten chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, will he most helpful and instructive to the 
thoughtful student of God’s Word. 

The Day of Atonement. 1 In each of the first four books of Moses, there is one 
preeminent chapter in which the very central truth of our redemption is taught. In Genesis, 
twenty-second chapter, we have an account of the offering of Isaac by Abraham, which surely 
points to the great sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son. In Exodus, twelfth 
chapter, we have an account of the slaying of the paschal lamb, whose blood was sprinkled on 
the door posts and lintels of the Hebrew cottages, and saved them from the destroying angel; 
which surely points to the great sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is “ our Passover, slain 
for us.” In the book before us 2 we have an account of the institution of the great sacrifice of 
the day of atonement, in which the central mystery of God’s way of putting away sin from his 
house and from his people is set forth; which, of course, points to the great atonement which 
our Lord Jesus has made for us once and for all. In Numbers, nineteenth chapter, we have an 
account of “ the waters of purification,” and the “ ashes of an heifer,” which is another most 
significant type of the power of Christ’s blood to purify us from all sin. 3 

All the ceremonial sacrifices of this and the other books of Moses, and all the subsequent 
ceremonial observances of the Law by the Jewish people, had a double significance. First, they 
testified to them the fact of their sin, and their need of atonement and purification; secondly, 
they pointed typically to the final and complete sacrifice of Christ, who “once in the end 
of the world .... appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The Epistle 
to the Hebrews is the divine commentary upon all these types and shadows, and ought to be 
carefully read and compared with the various ceremonials mentioned by Moses in the three 
hooks in which he has especially set forth the law of offerings, namely : Exodus, Leviticus, and 
Numbers. The ninth and tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be carefully 
studied in this connection. 

“ The great day of atonement ”, stood out in unique prominence among all other days in 
Israel. It had its human occasion in the sin of the sons of Aaron, in offering “ strange fire ” 
before the Lord, for which they were immediately slain by him. This account is found in the 
tenth chapter of Leviticus. Their sin seems to have grown out of an imperfect apprehension of 
the absolute holiness of God and the necessity of recognizing that fact, and observing all his 
commandments in reference to approaching him, with punctilious exactness. Immediately 
thereafter the Lord spake to Moses, and gave him a detailed account of things clean and 
unclean, both in man and beast, and in inanimate things; and special ceremonial sacrifices 
and offerings for their cleansing. These directions occupy the five chapters between the tenth 
and that which contains our present lesson. The great day of atonement was the culmination of 
these instructions, and was instituted to purge the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the camp and 
people of all sin and uncleanness which must have accumulated during the year, in spite of all 
the care which they could possibly take. It points out to us the subtlety and deep-seated 
character of sin, and shows us that nothing short of an entire covering of sin, by means of 
atonement, could avail to bring us into the presence of God “without dying.” This somewhat 
lengthy explanation is made necessary by the fragmentary character of our studies in these first 
books of the Bible. 

1. The Way Into the Holiest. Referring to the death of Nadab and Abihu, 4 who lost 
their lives by carelessly and willfully coming into the presence of the Lord with strange fire, 


1 Leviticus xvi, 1-6, xxiii, 27-32. 


2 Leviticus xvi. 


3 Hebrews ix, 13,14. 


4 Leviticus x, 1, 2. 




HIGH PRIEST ENTERING HOLY PLACE. 






































































































































































































346 


CEREMONIES AND SYMBOLISM. 


Moses, at the command of the Lord, forbade Aaron to go into the Holiest of Holies “at 
all times ” or carelessly, lest he, also, should die before the Lord, like his sons. Once a year 
only must he enter therein, and then only with the “ blood of atonement,” shed according to 
minute instructions, together with other observances, to-wit: the special clothing prepared for 
Aaron, and the burning censer. 1 The careful way in which the holiest of all was guarded and 
hedged about from the approach even of the high priest, and the fact that even then he might 
only enter on one day in each year, and that the entire congregation of Israel devoted that 
day to the observance of this single ceremony, signified to them the exceeding sinfulness of 
sin, the utter holiness of God, and the certainty of death overtaking any sinner who might 
essay to come into his presence with any taint of sin upon or about him, either without or 
within, in connection with priest or people, or even the furniture of the tabernacle and its 
instruments of worship. To us it signifies that “the way into the holiest of all was not yet 
made manifest,” and points us to Christ, who, “being come an High Priest of good [perfect] 

things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle,.by his own blood, 

entered in once [for all] into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” 2 The 
perfection of Christ’s atonement was signified to us in this respect by the rending of the veil of 
the temple on the day of his crucifixion, which tells us that now we may all come “boldly into 
the presence of God through him.” This is most precious to us, and though we are as sinful in 
ourselves as the most sinful of the Hebrews, yet since Christ has perfectly put away sin and 
opened up a new and living way for us “ through the veil of his flesh,” we need now have no 
fear of “ dying before the Lord ” when we draw near to him. 3 

2. The Atonement for the High Priest. The ceremony of atonement begins with the 
atonement ordered and made by the high priest himself. This was because he must offer for 
the people. But a sinful priest cannot make atonement for a sinful people. Unless he be first 
free from sin, he may not come into the presence of God, and, therefore, cannot approach God 
to make atonement for the people. This ceremonial purification of Aaron points us to Christ, 
who in himself was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” and needed not to make 
an atonement for his own sins. 4 We have seen how Christ offered himself as a whole burnt 
offering in which there was no confession of sin, but an offering accepted on the ground of its 
perfection as a satisfaction to the holy requirements of God as to righteousness under the Law; 
and that he might subsequently offer himself as a sin offering to make atonement for us—that 
is, satisfaction to the justice of God in respect to our sin and transgressions. Aaron had to do 
more than this, as will be seen in the following particulars. 

3. A Bullock for a Sin Offering. Aaron must first make acknowledgment of his own sin 
and that of his house, by offering the prescribed sin offering, and so make atonement. 5 This 
purged him from all guilt, and set him justified before God. He was now ceremonially sinless. 

4. A Ram for a Burnt Offering. Having first purged his own sin, he next appeared 
before God with a burnt offering, which he offered in token of the entire surrender of himself 
to God, as was due under the Law, which required the whole and unbroken obedience of man, 
and also, in token that he gave himself up according to the will of God, as our Lord Jesus did, 
to become the atoning High Priest for his people, and to make reconciliation for their sins. 6 
In all this we see how, step by step, the high priest took ceremonially and typically the place 
of Jesus Christ in the great work of atonement. 

5. The Holy Linen Garments. These, together with the washing of his flesh, are 
mentioned last — as a matter of fact, they were first in order. Laying aside his garments of 
“glory,” in which he discharged his ordinary daily service, he bathed his flesh in water, and 
clothed himself in the pure white garments of the common priest, thus in all points making 

1 Leviticus xvi; Hebrews ix, 4. 2 Hebrews ix, 8-12. 3 Matthew xxvii, 51; Hebrews vi, 19, x, 20. 

‘Hebrews vii, 26, 27. 5 Leviticus iv, 3. 6 Hebrews ii, 17. 



ATONEMENT FOR SIN. 


347 


himself like unto his brethren. In this attire he proceeded to make atonement for himself, and 
afterward for the people. This washing and clothing in white was to declare him characteris¬ 
tically, as well as ceremonially, clean — clean as to his flesh, and clean as he stood in the sight 
of God and men. Only so could he discharge the office of priest for the people on this “ great 
day of atonement.” It is all very beautiful, and, rightly understood, makes the character and 
work of our Lord Jesus most precious to us. 

6. The Atonement for the People. Having made atonement for himself, the high priest 
proceeded to make atonement for the people, which he did in the manner now to be described. 

7. Two Kids of the Goats for a Sin Offering. These were also first presented at the door 
of the tabernacle before the Lord. Here we have a perfectly unique sacrifice. The two goats 
are considered as one in the offering, and the manner in which they are disposed of presents for 
our contemplation the two great phases of our Savior’s sacrificial death “ before the Lord.” 
These two goats being presented before the Lord, a lot was cast to determine which should 
stand for the Lord and which for the people. The one upon which the Lord’s lot fell was to 
be offered to him as a sin offering, in satisfaction to his justice for the sins of the people; while 
the one which fell to the people was to be “ the scapegoat,” to bear away the sin of the people, 
which the Lord’s goat had already expiated, “ into the wilderness,” elsewhere spoken of as the 
“ land of forgetfulness.” This double phase of the atonement is most important, and merits 
further explanation, (a) The Lord’s lot. It is significant that a literal translation of the 
ninth verse would read thus: “And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the Lord’s lot went 
up, and shall make it sin.” This is deeply instructive, teaching us that there is, in the matter 
of atonement, a part which belongs to God only, and which is offered to God only. Sin is a 
guilty thing, for which satisfaction must be made. This satisfaction is rendered to God. In 
this transaction man has no part whatever. The blood of atonement is not offered to man, but 
to God. Here judgment and death are put upon the goat offered to the Lord, and man’s sin is 
punished and expiated. There are those who would have us believe that there is nothing in 
the nature or character of God which requires from us any expiation of sin; and, therefore, 
there is nothing so inherently sinful and guilty that God may not pass it by in simple forgive¬ 
ness. But we learn from this that God’s holiness and justice require that he should punish sin 
by judgment and death. This has been done by the one offering which Christ made of himself, 
“through the eternal Spirit,” for our sin. This is that which he did when “he purged our sin,” 
before he “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High.” 1 Let it be clearly understood 
that sin is something which God must take account of, wholly apart from the question of man’s 
salvation. Sin must be met and expiated, whether man be saved or not. It is a part of the 
gracious purpose of God in dealing with man, to give him the benefit of this expiation and 
provide for his return through the open door of forgiveness in connection with the putting 
away of sin. Therefore, we are prepared to understand how the expiation of sin by Christ 
“ for the whole world,” and “ for every man,” is made efficient for salvation only for those who, 
through faith and repentance, come back to God. There is no waste in this work of Christ 
because some do not believe, since it is something done unto God entirely apart from man’s 
acceptance. God’s glory could not be purged of the affront offered to it until sin had been put 
away by the amazing sacrifice which Christ accomplished. The punishment of the sinner does 
not glorify God in this respect, but the work of Christ does. A right understanding of this 
will clear up many of the popular objections to the atonement as it is objectively considered, or 
in its Godward aspect, (b) The people’s lot. “ The goat, on which the lot fell to be the scape¬ 
goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and let him go 
for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” 2 Here we have man’s side and share in the atonement. 
This goat was offered to the people as the former one was offered to the Lord. This transaction 


1 Hebrews i, 3, ix, 14. 


2 Leviticus xvi, 10. 



SACRIFICIAL OBSERVANCE A TYPE. 


348 

tells us how the sin of the people, which had been expiated by “ the Lord’s lot,” is now carried 
away into the wilderness by “ the people’s lot.” Beautiful type of that utter forgiveness and 
forgetfulness of our sin by the Lord whenever we accept his atonement and make it ours! 
“ Be it known unto you therefore men and brethren, that through this man [who was offered 
up to God as a sin offering] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins [a scapegoat to bear 
away your sin]: and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could 
not be justified by the law of Moses.” 1 If we might imagine any one man of Israel declaring 
that he would have nothing to do with either the Lord’s lot or the people’s lot, we should still 
see that both transactions (which are to be counted as one) would still have gone forward; while 
the man who repudiated both would be left to bear his own sin as though nothing had been 
done for him. So it is possible, though Jesus he set forth as the expiation for our sins and 
forgiveness freely declared through him, that the unbeliever is left for that to come upon him 
which was declared by the prophets: “ Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish.” 2 

8. The Bam for the Burnt Offering. We merely mention this since it belongs to the 
atonement for the people, as well as for the priests. The meaning of it has been already 
explained. It teaches us that not only must our sins be expiated and borne away by the scape¬ 
goat, but that every believer is expected, in virtue of his redemption, to offer himself in entire 
surrender and consecration to God. Forgiveness anil justification are not enough. God 
requires that all his people be a whole burnt offering to him. We need not carry this thought 
farther. 

The Order of the Atonement. Having explained the underlying facts of the great atone¬ 
ment, it is worth our while to look briefly at the order in which it was accomplished. 

The High Priest's Atonement. Before attending to the sins of the people, Aaron makes 
complete atonement for himself. Having cleansed himself and put on his linen garments, he 
takes his sin offering, and, with its blood, approaches the holiest of all. On the way he takes 
the golden censer, and, with fire from off the brazen altar, he goes into the holiest of all and 
burns it before the mercy seat, and sprinkles the blood before the mercy seat seven times. 3 
This completes his offering. Our Lord is supposed to have passed into the heavens to accom¬ 
plish this high-priestly function, just after his resurrection and before his appearance to his 
brethren. 4 The High Priest was thus first accepted for himself with God. 

The People’s Atonement. Having completed his own atonement, the high priest next 
proceeds to make atonement for the people. This he does by first offering the Lord’s lot. 
With the blood of this sin offering he passes into the holiest of all, as he had done before for 
himself. On his way out he sprinkles the veil, and all the instruments and altars of the taber¬ 
nacle, to show that the uncleanness which has come upon all things for man’s sake must also be 
put away. Then he comes out, having offered the blood of the Lord’s lot to him, and takes the 
live goat—the scapegoat — and sends him away into the wilderness. This shows us that there 
can come no forgiveness or putting away of our sin until the question of sin itself has been first 
thoroughly settled by the sin offering in the person of the Lord’s lot. This is a matter well 
worth our observation and attention, and puts our Lord’s sacrificial work and his ministry of 
forgiveness in its true light before us. 

The whole action of the high priest is beautifully summed up in the three appearings of 
our Lord, referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 5 First he appears to put away sin, and 
then passes into the holiest of all to appear in the presence of God for us, that, finally, to those 
who look and wait for him, he may appear “ the second time without sin unto salvation.” 


'Acts xiii, 38, 39. 


2 Acts xiii, 41. 


3 Leviticus xvi, 11-14. 


4 John xx, 17. 


3 Hebrews ix, 24, 20. 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 

HPHE book of Leviticus is divided into four parts (see Chapter IX). Our present study lies 
-L in the fourth section of this wonderful book and has to do with but one of the holy seasons 
— the Feast of Tabernacles. It is a part of our embarrassment that there is a very vital and 
significant connection between all the feasts and holy days, which ought to be carried in one’s 
thought when studying any one of them separately. The same embarrassment met us in 
attempting to explain and apply the burnt offering, which was but one of five great offerings. 
In Leviticus, chapter xxiii, we have the account of eight holy days and seasons, inclusive of 
the sabbath, which has a unique place in Israel’s history, and does not properly belong to the 
enumeration of what are called their “ feasts.” There are properly seven, as follows: The 
Feast of the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread (which is joined to the Passover feast), 
the Feast of the First Fruits, the Feast of Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, the Feast of 
Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. The feast of the passover was properly the first 
great feast in order, since it celebrated the deliverance from Egypt in connection with the 
slaying of the paschal lamb. The feast of tabernacles was the last and the “great feast,” as 
it came in the end of the year, after all their fruits were gathered in. This feast is entirely 
Jewish, and both in its present practical import and in its typical prophecy refers only to them. 
It is, incidentally, very important to us Gentile Christians, in that it helps us to understand the 
order of God’s purpose in respect to the Jews, and so enables us to understand our relations to 
that wonderful people, and to find our true place in the great consummation of things when the 
full typical significance of the feast is seen in its antitypical fulfillment. 1 

1. The Celebration of the Feast. We have in this chapter (Leviticus xxiii), and in the 
twenty-ninth chapter of Numbers, almost full details of its celebration. Some details not given 
in these Scriptures are added by Moses in Deuteronomy, and by Ezra and Nehemiah. For our 
purpose, however, we shall practically confine ourselves to the text before us. 

2. As to Time and Place. “ The fifteenth day of the seventh month shall be the feast of 
tabernacles.” This date corresponds to our month of October. It was the “feast of ingathering, 
which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labors out of the field,” 2 
“after that thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine.” 3 This should be borne in mind 
when we come to point out the typical significance of this feast. It was not only the last feast 
in the year, but the crowning feast in the order of celebrating all the Lord’s dealings with 
Israel. As to the place in which it was celebrated, it is manifest that it was not in the Wilder¬ 
ness, but in the “ good land into which the Lord had brought them,” though it looks backward 
to the day in which God brought them out of Egypt, and caused them to dwell in “ booths,” 
during the first part of their journeyings in the Wilderness, before they had made for them¬ 
selves more permanent tents. The time during which this feast lasted was eight days, including 
the sabbaths on which it began and ended. More properly, it was seven days, since there is 
reason to believe that the feast proper ended on the seventh day from the first sabbath, the 
second sabbath marking the termination of the feast by some peculiar rites not observed on 
the ordinary sabbath. 

3. “ Ye shall do no servile work therein.” This was peculiar to all the feasts. It is 
eminently proper that, on days and during feasts in which the goodness and grace of God are 

1 Exodus xxiii, 16, xxxiv, 22; Deuteronomy xvi, 13; Ezra iii, 4; Nehemiah viii, 14 ; John vii, 2, 37. 

2 Exodus xxiii, 16. 3 Deuteronomy xvi, 13. 


319 



350 


THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 


commemorated, no servile work should be done. God’s people are not given over to servile 
work. All their work is worship, done in the liberty and freedom which belongs to sons and 
not to slaves. “ We are not under law, but under grace.” “ The holy service of God’s people 
is not servile labor, hut the sweet unfolding of Christ’s life and character.” Therefore, “ for me 
to live is Christ.” This is truly characteristic of all the employments of those of God’s people 
who rightly understand their relation to him through grace. It applies not only to the 
so-called “ religious and spiritual service ” done on Sundays or at other times, but to all our 
labor and employments. “ Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do,” we do it “ unto the 
Lord,” as a joyful expression of our oneness with him, and our deliverance from law and from 
oppressive care. We do not, indeed, suspend our ordinary occupations when we become 
Christians, as the Jews did on their sabbaths, hut we should carry our sabbath into all our 
life and work. All time is holy to the Christian, and, therefore, all work is holy. We break 
the sabbath not in the non-observance of a day, but in the unsanctification of our lives, and in 
the spirit of our employments and recreations. 

4. “ Ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord." During the whole seven days 
and on the eighth day, there was to be special and abundant offerings of the class distinguished 
by the sweet smell; that is, their feasting and worship were characterized especially by obedi¬ 
ence, love to each other, and fellowship — a beautiful type of the condition of life and worship 
in the millennial time, of which this feast was typical, as we shall see presently. In the 
account of the offerings given, 1 we note that on the first day there were thirteen bullocks offered 
for burnt offering, and on each succeeding day one less, which may signify the gradual disap¬ 
pearance of these offerings or the complete fulfillment of them in the perfect sacrifice to which 
they pointed. On each day there was one kid offered for a sin offering, which indicates that 
even among the holiest of God’s people and at the holiest of seasons, there is still sin which 
must be confessed and put away. 

5. “ Ye shall take you on the first day the boughs [or fruit] of goodly trees, and branches 
of palm trees," etc. These were both for the purpose of building booths in which they were to 
dwell during the celebration of this feast in memory of their former pilgrim state, and to 
remind them of the fact that, though they now dwelt in houses, they were still to regard them¬ 
selves as pilgrims and strangers, having “ here no continuing city.” This custom was actually 
revived by Ezra when the people came back to their land from the long Captivity. 2 It is a 
matter of wonder to us that, notwithstanding the explicit commandment given for the celebra¬ 
tion of this feast, it was never celebrated — at least not this particular feature of it — from the 
days of Joshua till after the return from Captivity, as is noted in the Book of Nehemiah, in 
the passage just referred to. This may indicate typically the great apostasy of the Jews from 
the faith in their final millennial glory, while as yet they were in the Land of Promise. It 
was, indeed, revived by Ezra, and the feast continued to be regularly and carefully celebrated 
down to the days of our Savior’s advent on the earth, though latterly with little spiritual under¬ 
standing. It was probably in imitation of this custom during the feast of tabernacles that the 
people broke off boughs of trees and strewed them before Jesus as he entered Jerusalem. 3 
Thus the observance of what is called “ Palm Sunday,” commemorating our Lord’s entry 
into Jerusalem, a few days before his crucifixion, may be regarded as, in part, an echo of 
Israel’s joyous thanksgiving festival. 

6. “ Ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days." In this we see the general 
character of the feast. It was essentially a time of thanksgiving. Neighbors and friends came 
together who had been parted during the year; and general fellowship and communion were 
indulged. The abundant harvest was gathered, and all the goodness of the Lord was talked 
over; in a word, this was a time of thanksgiving in which all Israel participated. 


1 Numbers xxix. 


2 Ezra iii, 4 ; Nehemiah viii, 14. 


3 Matthew xxi. 



ITS ACTUAL AND TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 


351 


The Significance of the Feast. We have already anticipated this branch of the subject 
in some particulars, but it will help us to understand it better, even if we repeat a little of what 
has been said. 

1. Its Present Significance. This is seen in the time and occasion of the feast. It was the 
Jewish thanksgiving festival. The ground, under the blessing of the Lord, had brought forth 
plentifully. They had gathered in their corn, their wine, and all the fruits of the field. Their 
time of hard labor had passed, and they were made secure in basket and store. It was meet that 
they should set apart a time in which to recognize the good hand of God, who had fulfilled his 
promises to them in the land which he had given them. Nothing is, or can be, of more 
practical value to any people than the practice of grateful thanksgiving to God. It reminds 
them that the supply for their need comes from God, and not from their own toil alone; and 
thus prevents pride of heart and selfishness of conduct. It turns their thoughts away, for 
awhile, from sordid occupations and “ servile work,” and lifts up their hearts to the thought 
of better and higher joys than those which come from mere possession. Their feasting, and 
visiting, and mutual congratulations served to bind the Israelites together alike in family, 
national, and spiritual bonds. The weakness of most of our lives is seen in the barrenness of 
our hearts in gratitude and thanksgiving to God, and in the lack of spiritual feasting and 
fellowship one with another. 

2. Its Retrospective Significance. “That your generations may know that I made the 
children of Israel dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt.” The 
Israelites were taught here how God had dealt with them in the past, and how his providences 
had led them up to present blessing and affluence. It also reminded them that, though they 
were now in the enjoyment of earth’s richest blessings, they were not of the earth, earthy; but 
were, in fact, pilgrims and strangers looking forward to a better country, even an heavenly; 
and must not allow themselves to be bound too fast to the earth, or fixed too permanently in 
“houses made with hands.” 

3. Its Typical Significance. In this regard we see its highest meaning. There is no 
doubt that this great feast pointed to a time and a condition of things which has not as yet been 
realized by the Jews as a people. In order to understand this, we must take at least a brief 
glance at three other feasts mentioned in the chapter before us, and note how they have been 
fulfilled as to their typical meaning. First: The Passover Feast undoubtedly pointed to the 
coming into the world of Jesus Christ, who fulfilled in himself the prophecy of the paschal 
lamb which was the foundation of that feast. As the children of Israel were delivered from 
the bondage of Egypt by the shedding of the blood of their passover lamb, so have we and they 
been delivered from the corruption and bondage of sin by the slaying of “ Christ our Pass- 
over.” 1 Secondly: The Feast of the First Fruits. “Then ye shall bring a sheaf of the first 
fruits of your harvest unto the priest: and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be 
accepted for you : on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.” 8 This was typical 
of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, which occurred “on the morrow after the sabbath.” 
Christ is the First Fruit of the great harvest of resurrection and of the ingathering of his 
people. 3 There can be little doubt of this in the mind of the thoughtful and careful student 
of God’s blessed Word. Thirdly : The Feast of Pentecost. This occurred just fifty days after 
the Feast of the First Fruits. Just so, on the fiftieth day after the resurrection of our Lord, on 
the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost was poured out and the great harvest of his people began 
to be gathered in. That work is still going on, and will continue through the preaching of the 
Gospel until the whole harvest is gathered. Then will roll in the great feast of tabernacles, 
when all the remnant of God’s ancient people will be gathered in. Thus the feast under 
consideration points to the “restitution of things,” when the “times of refreshing shall come 


1 1. Corinthians v, 7. 


2 Leviticus xxiii, 10,11. 


3 1. Corinthians xv, 23 ; James i, 18. 



352 


SPIRITUAL LESSONS. 


from the presence of the Lord”; when God shall send Jesus “whom the heaven must receive” 
until then. 1 It is undoubtedly the feast that typifies the millennial reign of the Jews on the 
earth — a view that is still further strengthened when we remember that there was a great 
apostasy of the Jews from the observance of the feast, from the days of Joshua until the time 
of Ezra, when a little remnant of God’s people returned from their long Captivity. It was 
then that, in reading the Law, the commandment concerning this feast was discovered, and the 
feast restored with great joy. 2 If there remains any doubt in the minds of any as to this typical 
reference, they need only to turn to the Book of Zechariah, where we have a glimpse of Israel 
in future millennial glory and power. “And .... every one that is left of all the 
nations shall go up every year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the feast 
of tabernacles.” 3 We have not dared, in our attempt to expound this important passage of 
Scripture, to follow the beaten paths of the “ spiritualizes,” and cover out of sight what we 
believe to be the true meaning of the Spirit in this matter. We know that those who are wise 
in the Scriptures will see the truth and rejoice, and can only pray that thoughtful students who 
have not as yet seen this truth may be persuaded to “ search the Scriptures ” and see “ if these 
things be so.” In the meantime, for ourselves, we will keep this feast in our hearts for the 
sake of “the brethren of the Lord” who are at this time dispersed “with the veil over their 
hearts,” hut who shall at last come to see and acknowledge their rejected Messiah and King, 
and with everlasting joy enter again into their land, evermore to keep the feast of tabernacles in 
millennial glory and power. 


CHAPTER XII. 

THE YEAR OF JUBILEE. 

I N many respects the Year of Jubilee was the most remarkable and significant civil anti 
religious institution of the Hebrew people. A careful reading of the twenty-fifth chapter 
of Leviticus cannot but impress every reader with the wonderful wisdom and divine goodness 
manifested in the law of the Jubilee. The Lord commanded that, upon entering upon their 
possessions in the land which he gave them, they were to observe first the sabbath day; but 
besides this they were to observe a sabbatic year—that is every seventh year the land was to 
rest; neither sowing, nor planting, nor reaping, nor gathering was allowed. The land must 
rest. If there was a doubt as to how the people were to survive without one whole year’s 
produce from the land, the Lord comforted and reassured them as follows: “And if ye shall 
say, what shall we eat the seventh year ? behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase: 
Then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for 
three years. And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat yet of old fruit until the ninth year; 
until her fruits shall come in ye shall eat of the old store.” 4 Here is a wonderful provision 
made for those who serve and obey the Lord. Man is always asking: “What shall we do?” 
and God is always saying to them who trust him: “I will command my blessing.” God sets 
his blessing over against man’s need and nature’s inability. He is able to do much more for us 
than we ask or think. Nature is not our sole provider. God is over and above nature. By 
herself nature is a bountiful mother, but when God commands his blessing upon nature there 
will be wonderful increase. Early in their history God taught his people that he was the 
Almighty and that he could do for them through nature what nature could not do without 


1 Acts iii, 19-21. 


2 Nehemiah viii, 14-18. 


3 Zechariah xiv, 16-19. 


4 Leviticus xxv, 20-22. 




THE YEAR OF JUBILEE. 


353 


his quickening. ^Nature could not bring forth a son to Abraham and Sarah in their old age, 
but God is greater than nature and at his word nature wrought through him that was as good 
as dead, and her who was barren, and gave them the Son of Promise. They that are in the 
way of God’s commandments need not fear for either the famine or the pestilence. 

The jubilee year was the fiftieth year from the first celebration of the day of atonement 
after they entered into the land—a complete round of seven sabbatical year periods. The 
year was ushered in with the sound of the trumpets which were blown just as the atone¬ 
ment was completed, and with that blast the whole land of Israel awakened with joy. We 
can well imagine the scene and the unspeakable gladness. For fifty years man had been 
getting his affairs into disorder. The poor and unthrifty had lost their lands and patrimony; 
some were deeply in debt; others were sold into bondage; families were separated by these 
unhappy circumstances. The thrifty were growing more rich, having bought the land of their 
poorer neighbors and taken their service in lieu of moneys borrowed and not paid; but God 
was over all. He had said: “ The land shall not be sold forever : for the land is mine; for ye 
are strangers and sojourners with me.” 1 As soon as the priest ministering at the atonement 
had finished the offering and came forth and blessed the people, the trumpet was placed to his 
lips, and liberty was proclaimed “throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” 2 This 
first bugle blast and proclamation of liberty was taken up by the Levites and spread from 
hilltop to hilltop, until the sound of the glad jubilee was quickly sent throughout the land. 
All prison houses were opened, all debtors were set free, all slaves, save those of the bored ear, 
returned to their families; and all men who had parted with their possessions were privileged 
to return to them, and did so return. Everything was set in order according to God’s mind. 
It is difficult to conceive of any provision so complete as that made by the Jubilee for the 
straightening out of crooked things and the righting of all wrong things; for bringing order 
out of the confusion created by the thriftlessness and sinfulness of some men and the greed 
and overreaching avarice of others. 

1. The chief feature of the jubilee was its association with the atonement. “ Then shalt 
thou cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month; in the 
day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.” 3 It is the 
atonement which is the basis for the settlement of all things which have gone wrong, both as 
between God and man, and man and man. Has man sold himself unto sin ? Then it is God’s 
blessed atonement which makes it possible for him to proclaim forgiveness for all sin and the 
deliverance of the soul from the bondage of corruption. Has man gotten all earthly things 
into confusion and hopeless inequalities, and intentionally or otherwise forfeited his earthly 
privileges or grasped more than his share? It is the atonement of God which is the basis of 
settlement for all disputes between man and man. We first learn to prize God’s forgiveness 
of our debts to him, and then we are made willing to forgive all those who are indebted to 
us. It is only when man is made right with God that he can make things right with his 
fellowman. 

2. The jubilee was also intimately connected with the Sabbath of the Lord. The Jubilee 
Year was a sabbatic year. It tells us that we shall not always toil and sweat for our bread, 
but that God has a sabbath in store for us. Here, again, it is the finished work of Christ 
which constitutes the true atonement and brings in rest to us, so that “ we which have believed 
do enter into rest.” 4 Moreover, the land itself, which is to share in the final restitution of all 
things, rested in the jubilee as a foretaste of the time when its fair bosom shall no longer be 
torn by the plow or pierced by the spade; when the fields and the vineyards shall bear in their 
season, without the pruning and cutting which goes on now. 

3. The poor and unfortunate and sinful were redeemed out of all their trouble and took 


'Leviticus xxv, 23. 


2 Leviticus xxv, 10. 


3 Leviticus xxv, 9. 


4 Hebrews iv, 3. 



354 


JUSTICE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RELEASE. 


their places as the Lord’s freemen, upon their own patrimony and in their own homesteads, and 
thus were not disgraced but dignified by the jubilee deliverance. 

4. The rich were taught that God stood between them and the poor , and was the redeemer 
of such as had need, and that the land was the Lord’s and not man’s; and further, that he 
would not allow any one man permanently to take advantage of any other one man’s misfor¬ 
tune. In a word, the rich were reminded that the poor and unfortunate and afflicted had rights 
which they were hound to respect. It was also a great lesson in moderation to the grasping. 
They could not get possession of the land permanently. However they may have added field 
to field and house to house, at the jubilee they had to relax their grasp and be content with 
their own patrimony. 

5. That God's grace and mercy were over all was another teaching of the Year of Jubilee. 
God was man’s redeemer and friend, and, in due time, would right all wrongs. He was the 
redeemer and friend of the poor, but none the less also of the rich, for by the same token with 
which he protected the poor he also saved the rich from making shipwreck of faith and from 
falling into the temptations and snares which overtake so many rich men. 

6. The Year of Jubilee shows us how superior God's day is to man's day. All values 
were regulated by that day. If a man bought a piece of land the first year after jubilee, it 
was worth only what he might produce in the next forty-nine years. If bought the year 
before the jubilee, it was worth only its products for one year. And so of service from slaves 
and value from money lent. 

7. The significance of the jubilee, prophetically, to the Jews was very great. It pointed to 
the time when the whole Hebrew people would be, as it were, banished ones, even as they are 
to-day; driven from their possessions in the land which the Lord their God gave them and 
scattered among the nations. Not only are they banished from their land, but the land is in 
the hands of aliens and strangers. But this is not forever. The land is the Lord’s and the 
Jewish people are his tenants forever. Therefore, the time will come when the trumpet shall 
sound throughout the world and his banished ones shall hear the sound and shall return again 
to their own land. This is the burden of all prophecy. 1 

8. The typical significance of the jubilee in respect of the Gospel. The blowing of the 
jubilee trumpet upon the finishing of the atonement is nothing less than the sounding forth of 
the Gospel throughout the whole world upon the finishing of the great work of atonement by 
Jesus. In the beautiful sixty-first chapter of Isaiah, the prophet makes the coming Messiah 
to say “the Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach 
good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted; to proclaim 
liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison doors to them that are bound; to proclaim 
the acceptable [forgiveness, or jubilee] year of the Lord.” This passage Jesus appropriated 
to himself and said it was that day fulfilled in the hearts of the people to whom he preached 
the glad tidings. 2 His commission to preach the Gospel to every creature was the proclama¬ 
tion of jubilee to the whole world. On the day of pentecost the trumpet was sounded and 
the captives and the prison-bound, the poor and the penitent, began to go free, and in virtue 
of this jubilee proclamation the banished ones have been returning all through the long 
and blessed jubilee time of grace. “Now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of 
salvation [jubilee].” 3 

9. The final significance of the jubilee is seen in the restitution of all things —when the 
dead shall be brought forth from their prison-houses — the graves — both in the land and 
in the sea; when the long-parted shall be united, and the earth and the Church, with the 
converted Jews reclaimed by the coming the second time of Christ, shall rejoice together. 4 

1 Isaiah xli, lxi; Zechariah ix, etc. 2 Luke iv, 16-21. 3 II. Corinthians vi, 2. 

* See Acts iii, 19-21; Romans viii, 19-23 ; I. Corinthians xv; I. Thessalonians iv; II. Peter iii, 13; Revelation xxi; etc. 






















356 


A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. 


For ourselves we might do well to remember and give place in our lives to the lessons of 
the jubilee — to remember the poor, not to oppress them; to moderate our greed of gain, 
remembering that the Lord is coming and that the value of all things is regulated by his near 
approach ; and especially to see that we do not suffer our ears to be bored so that at the sound 
of the Gospel Jubilee we cannot go out with the rest of the sin debtors and prisoners. 


CHAPTER XIII. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF HEBREW SOCIETY. 

I T is interesting to note the steady development of the Hebrew people, who came out of Egypt 
a huge mob of recently released slaves, into a perfectly organized commonwealth or state. 
Ordinarily, communities are organized about the person of some masterful man who has made 
himself king or governor by his superior wisdom or his sheer might. Such were the ancient 
kings and such were the ancient communities. In later times we note that communities have 
been organized upon some basis of philosophical government in which the rights of men, 
especially of the upper classes, have been recognized and safeguarded, and the whole constructed 
on principles of utilitarianism, the greatest good to the greatest number being often urged, not 
overlooking the preservation of the State in domestic peace and from foreign invasion. The 
organization of Hebrew society or the Hebrew commonwealth differed from all these, for it was 
a purely “ theocratic ” commonwealth. The tabernacle was the visible center of its organization. 
From the door of the tabernacle all laws were proclaimed, and there, also, all questions at issue 
between man and man were settled. In that tabernacle and over the mercy seat dwelt the 
visible “ shekinah ” of God, who was, in fact, the King of Israel. All the laws of the Hebrews, 
civil, criminal, domestic, and religious, were promulgated from the throne of Jehovah, and all 
of them had a direct bearing upon the religious life of the people. All of them had reference 
to the spiritual and ethical training of the people, and all of them pointed to a higher and more 
lasting state of existence. 

In fact, we may say that Hebrew society was theocratic socialism pure and simple. The 
tenure of the land, the laws concerning debts, profit, bondsmen, taxes, interest, and all sanitary 
and dietetic laws were under divine and religious regulation, and all were so constructed as to 
make for the spiritual welfare of the people. God was “ all and in all ” not only in the more 
strictly religious ceremonials, but in the commonest detail of life at home, in the fields, in the 
market, as well as about the tabernacle. 

The land belonged to God and the holder of the land was God’s tenant. It seems to have 
been the purpose of God to promote agricultural and rural life more than city life. This may 
be seen in the regulations touching the tenure of the land. When Israel was numbered just 
before entering the land of Canaan, which God had given to them, it was found that there were 
600,000 men, exclusive of the Levites. These were not left to go up and possess the land, as it 
were indiscriminately, as did the Normans when they conquered England. They were put in 
possession of the land under strict and equal division. Cities were not mentioned in the 
division, but every man had a portion of land for himself, which was his under divine lease¬ 
hold. He might not permanently alienate it from himself or his family. For, even if he did 
sell his land, it was restored to him or to his heirs at the time of the jubilee year. The universal 
release of land and property at the jubilee did not apply to cities. For in cities, if houses were 



LAND TENURES—MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. 


357 


sold and were not redeemed within one year, they were alienated forever. 1 The discrimina¬ 
tion in favor of the country land, as against the city property, had a tendency to make the land 
of more value than city property. There was in this law an entailment of land certainly; but 
the working of the law of entail among the Hebrews was utterly different from the law of entail 
in England, for instance. In the first place, inasmuch as there could be no permanent aliena¬ 
tion of land from one proprietor to another, there could be no extension of estates, and so no 
class of vast landholders. The whole land was divided into small holdings; the people were 
kept in comparative pastoral, or, at least, agricultural content, and the modern tendency to 
gather in cities was avoided. 

The tenants of this land of Jehovah paid to him, as it were, a kind of rent in the tithe (to 
be spoken of more particularly), which went for the maintenance of the public worship of the 
nation, and for the support of the Levites. Every freeholder of land under this splendid land 
system was obliged to render military service under his own chief or the head of his tribe. 2 
Thus the agrarian system of the Hebrews tended to the highest cultivation of the land and 
to promote patriotism, and at the same time kept down internal ambitions and strife for power 
and provided for the defense of the country against foreign aggression. 

With regard to town or city life, the Hebrew genius, or rather the final cause of the 
Hebrew society, did not encourage it. God’s people from the earliest times had never been 
builders of cities. That employment seems to have been the peculiar prerogative of those who 
wished to throw off God’s yoke, from the days of Cain downward. The earliest account of city 
building is that of the City of Enoch by Cain, and all the subsequent mention of city building 
is in connection with the apostate families of the earth, such as Nimrod and his descendants, 
the Cananites and the Egyptians. Sodom is one of the earliest mentioned cities properly so 
called, and the story of it is not encouraging for the people of God. Lot, who took up his resi¬ 
dence there, escaped “ so as by fire ” after “ vexing his righteous soul ” with the wickedness of 
its inhabitants. It is true that, upon entering the land, the cities which were not destroyed — 
such as Jericho and others—were occupied by the people. Later on, Jerusalem became the 
cajhtal of the kingdom, but it was not till after the kingdom of Israel succeeded to the common¬ 
wealth proper. The internal government of Jewish cities was vested in a “ council of elders, 
with judges who were required to be priests.” Josephus says there were “seven judges with 
two Levites as officers.” 3 In the time of Samuel it was his province to go from city to city, 
to hold a kind of circuit court and to offer sacrifice. Still later, under the kings, further 
regulations were inaugurated, upon which it is beyond my province to enter. But, all things 
considered, the safeguarding of the rights of the people was carefully provided for, and the 
municipal life and government of the cities of Israel might well be followed in our day. 

The Levites among the tribes of Israel were set apart for special service about the taber¬ 
nacle. They were a kind of lay priesthood; not allowed, indeed, to enter the tabernacle 
proper, but they served in the court and did all the manual labor in connection with the 
ceremonial law. It was their business to bear the tabernacle furniture from place to place, 
taking it down and erecting it again. This was the tribe of which Moses and Aaron were 
distinguished members. Because they were thus set apart for special service, no share in the 
divided land was given them, since they had other business to occupy them than agricultural 
pursuits and soldiering. To them, therefore, were given cities in the land to dwell in and a 
surburban portion of land extending 1,000 cubits from the walls of the city outward round 
about. 4 They had forty-eight cities in all. Of these six — three on either side of Jordan — 
were specially set apart to be “ cities of refuge ” for the involuntary manslayer, to which he 


1 See Leviticus xxv, 23-37 ; Numbers xxvi, 33-54, xxxvi; Deuteronomy xv, 1-11. 

2 Deuteronomy xx, 5; Exodus xviii; Numbers xxxi, 14. 3 Deuteronomy xvi, 18, xix, 17, xxi, 5,19; Ruth iv, 2. 

* Numbers xxxv, 1-8. 



358 


CITIES OF REFUGE—SANITARY AND DIETETIC LAWS . 


might flee from the “ avenger of blood ” and be safe. The privilege of refuge or sanctuary was 
extended alike to the stranger and the sojourner in the land, according to that large charity 
which characterized the Hebrew society. The cities of refuge were Kedesh, Shechem, Hebron, 
Bezer, Bamoth Gilead, and Golan. 1 The object of these asylums was that the hasty revenge by 
the avenger of blood — the next of kin to the slain man — might be stayed until the case could 
be inquired into. Before being admitted to permanent residence the fleer from vengeance was 
subjected to a rigid inquiry. If it was found that the killing had been in malice or with 
murderous intent, then he was denied asylum and delivered over to the avenger. If it was 
shown that the killing was by accident or in self-defense, then he was given asylum in the city 
to which he fled, and a convenient residence assigned him, and he was provided for by the 
Levites. He was allowed to go about within the 1,000 yards’ boundary without fear of the 
avenger; but if he went beyond these limits, he did so at his own risk. Upon the death of the 
high priest he was permitted to leave the city under perfect protection of the law and return to 
his own land. If he should a second time slay a man, he must flee to another city than that 
one in which he had already once had asylum. It is said by Jewish writers that the roads 
leading to these six cities, which were well placed so as to be within comparatively easy reach 
from all parts of the land, were kept in perfect repair, not less than thirty-two cubits broad — 
that is, forty-six feet — and every inequality on the surface was carefully taken away, so that a 
runner might not stumble in his flight. The rivers and streams were all bridged, and at every 
turning of the road there was a clear and largely written sign board marked “ Refuge! 
Refuge !/” so that the manslayer might not lose time by inquiry. This is probably the origin 
of the expression, “ He that runs may read.” 2 That is, the letters on the sign post were so 
large that the runner need not stop to spell it out, but might read it running, or, reading it 
running, need not stop or stay his flight. Perhaps, also, this suggested the proverb, “ I have 
taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths. When thou goest, thy 
steps shall not be straightened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.” 3 It is not 
surprising that all readers of the Bible have found in this wise, humane, and just provision 
for the manslayer in the cities of refuge, a type of Christ and his salvation for sinners. 
He is accessible, to all; there is a highway, the teaching is plain, and the refuge is perfect. 

The most perfect arrangements were made for the protection of the health of the people, 
in ordinances covering personal habits of cleanliness, the removal from their houses and camps 
of all effete matter that might breed disease, and the careful regulation of their food, especially 
as to the kinds of animal food which they might eat. Certain kinds of flesh, fish, and birds 
were prohibited as unclean. The distinction between the clean and unclean was no doubt to a 
large extent based upon the inherent unfitness of the prohibited kinds for wholesome food. But 
there was ethical and spiritual teaching in these laws, as well as sanitary protection. Every¬ 
thing pointed to and reminded the people of God’s holiness and their own obligations to 
holiness as the peculiar people of God. These regulations also served to mark them off from 
the surrounding nations. 

The laws in respect of debt and usury were made to prevent the poor and improvident 
man from becoming the prey of the rich and thrifty, and to restrain the natural tendencies of 
the strong and prosperous to make gain of their poorer brethren. 

Vows were made most sacred. One might not make a vow and break it with impunity. 
This was both for protection in all transactions between man and God and between man and 
man, and also to teach the sanctity of one’s plighted troth or word. 4 For details in respect of 
all these things the Book of Leviticus is especially referred to. 

In order that the whole system upon which the Hebrew society was founded may be 

'Numbers xxxv, 10-34 ; Joshua xx. 2 See Habakkuk ii, 2: “that he may run that readeth it.” 

3 Proverbs iv, 11, 12. 4 Hebrews vi, 16-18. 



HEBRAIC JURISPRUDENCE. 


359 


brought before the reader so classified that it may be seen at a glance the following compendium 
and analysis is appended. 

I.—THE CIVIL LAWS. 

A. Ix Respect of Persons. 1. The Father and Son. (a) The power of the father was 
to be held sacred. Cursing or smiting, and stubborn or willful disobedience on the part of a 
son was held as a capital crime and punishable by death. 1 But the uncontrolled power of life 
aud death was not absolutely in the hands of the father. It must be sanctioned by the 
congregation — that is, the ruling elders of the people. 2 (b) The right of the firstborn to a 
double portion of the inheritance might not be set aside by mere partiality. 3 (c) Inheritance by 
daughters was to be allowed where there was a default of a son — provided the daughter so 
inheriting married in her own tribe. 4 ( d ) Unmarried daughters were to be entirely dependent 
on their fathers. 5 2. Husband and Wife, (a) The power of the husband was so great that 
the wife could never, by herself, enter independently into any engagement, even before God. 6 
A widow or divorced wife became independent, and did not fall again under her father’s 
authority. 7 (b) Divorce for unfaithfulness to the marriage relation was allowed, but was formal 
and irrevocable. 8 (c) Marriage within certain degrees of relationship was forbidden. 9 (d) A 
slave wife, whether bought or a captive, could not be actual property, nor sold; and if ill 
treated that was ipso facto her freedom. 10 (e) Slander against a wife’s virginity was punishable 
by fine and the deprival of the right of divorce; on the other hand, ante-connubial unchastity 
on her part was punishable by death. 11 (/) The raising up of seed (levirate law), was a formal 
right to be claimed by the widow, under pain of infamy, with a view to the preservation of 
families. 12 3. Master and Slave, (a) The power of the master was so far limited that death 
under actual chastisement was punishable; and maiming was to give liberty. 13 (b) The Hebrew 
slave was to be liberated in the sabbatical year, his wife and children to go with him only if 
they came to his master with him, unless by his own formal act he consented to a perpetual 
slavery. 14 In any case he was freed at the jubilee with his children. 15 If sold to a resident 
alien, he was always redeemable at a price in proportion to the distance from the jubilee. 16 
(c) Foreign slaves were to be held and inherited as slaves forever, 17 and fugitive slaves from 
foreign nations were never to be given up. 18 4. Strangers seem to have been apart — sui juris — 
without law and able to protect themselves; but, and perhaps, therefore, protection, kindness 
toward them was particularly enjoined as a sacred duty. 19 

B. The Law of Things. 1. Of Land and Property, (a) All land was the property of 
God and its holders to be deemed his tenants. 20 (6) All land sold was to return to its original 
owners at the jubilee, and the price of sale to be calculated accordingly; and redemption on 
equitable terms was to be allowed at all times. 21 (c) A house in a city was redeemable within 
a year; and if not redeemed within that time passed away forever. 22 (d) The houses of the 
Levites and those dwelling in unwalled villages — farm settlements — were redeemable at all 
times in the same way as lands; and the Levitical suburbs were inalienable. 23 (e) Houses or 
land sanctified, or tithes, or unclean firstlings, were capable of being redeemed at five-sixths of 
their value (calculated, according to the distance from the jubilee year, by the priest); if devoted 
by the owner and unredeemed, they were to be hallowed at the jubilee forever, and given to the 
priests; but if devoted only by the possessor, they were to return to the owner at the jubilee. 24 

1 Exodus xxi, 15-17; Leviticus xx, 9. 2 Deuteronomy xxi, 18-21. 

3 Deuteronomy xxi, 15-17 ; compare Jeremiah xxxiv, 8-16. 4 Numbers xxvii, 6-8; compare xxxvi. 

5 Numbers xxx, 3-5. 6 Numbers xxx, 6-15. 7 Numbers xxx, 9. 8 Deuteronomy xxiv, 1-4. 

9 Leviticus xviii. 10 Exodus xxi, 7-9; Deuteronomy xxi, 10-14. 11 Deuteronomy xxii, 13-21. 

12 Deuteronomy xxv, 5-10. 13 Exodus xxi, 20, 26, 27. 14 Exodus xxi, 1-6; Deuteronomy xv, 12-18. 

13 Leviticus xxv, 10. 16 Ibid, 45-54. 17 Ibid, 45, 46. 18 Deuteronomy xxiii, 15. 

19 Exodus xxii, 21 ; Leviticus xix, 33, 34. 20 Leviticus xxv, 23. 21 Ibid, 25-27. 22 Ibid, 29, 30. 

23 Ibid, 31-34. 24 Leviticus xxvii, 14-33. 



360 


CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CODES. 


(/) Inheritance was in the following order of succession: (i) Sons, (ii) Daughters, (iii) 
Brothers, (iv) Uncles on the father’s side, (v) Next kinsman, generally. 

2. Laws of Debt, (a) All debts of an Israelite were to be released at the seventh (sab¬ 
batical) year; a blessing was promised to obedience and a curse on refusal to lend. 1 ( b ) Usury, 
from Israelites, was not to be taken. 2 (c) Pledges were not to be insolently or ruinously 
exacted. 3 

3. Taxation, (a) Census-money, a poll tax of half a shekel, was to be paid for the 
service of the tabernacle. 4 (5) All spoils in war were to be halved: of the combatants’ half, 
one five-thousandth; of the peoples’, one-fiftieth; to be paid for a heave offering for Jehovali. 
(c) Tithes of all produce were to be given for the maintenance of the Levites. 5 Of this one- 
tenth was to be paid as a heave offering for the maintenance of the priests. 6 A second tithe 
was to be bestowed in feasting and religious charity, either at the holy place or every third 
year at home. 7 (d) First fruit of corn, wine, and oil, at least one-sixtieth — generally one- 
fortieth for the priests — was to be offered at Jerusalem, together with a solemn declaration of 
dependence upon God, the King of Israel. 8 Firstlings of clean beasts, the redemption money 
(five shekels) of a man, and (one-lialf shekel or one shekel) of unclean beasts, were to be given 
to the priests after sacrifice. 9 ( e) For the poor, (i) Gleanings in the field or vineyard, were to 
be the legal right of the poor. 10 (ii) Slight trespass, to be eaten on the spot, was to be allowed. 11 
(iii) The second tithe was to be given in charity (see above), (iv) Wages were to be paid 
daily. 12 (/) Maintenance of the priests. 13 (i) One-tenth of Levites’ tithes (see above), (ii) 
The heave and wave offering — breast and right shoulder of all peace offerings, (iii) The meat 
and sin offering were to be eaten solemnly in the holy place, (iv) First fruit and redemption 
money (see above), (v) Price of all devoted things, unless given for special service. A man’s 
service or that of his household was to be redeemed at 50 shekels for a man, 30 for a woman, 
20 for a boy, and 10 for a girl. 


II.—CRIMINAL LAWS. 

A. Offenses Against God (of the nature of treason). 1. Acknowledgment of false 
gods, 14 as, e. g., Moloch, 15 and generally all idolatry. 16 2. Witchcraft and false prophecy. 17 3. 
Blasphemy. 18 4. Sabbath breaking. 19 The punishment in all these cases was death by stoning. 
Idolatrous cities were to be utterly destroyed. 

B. Offenses Against Man. 1. Impiety toward parents was to be punished by death, 
by stoning, to be publicly adjudged and inflicted; also disobedience to priests (as judges) or 
Supreme Judge. 21 2. Murder was to be punished by death, without sanctuary, or reprieve or 
satisfaction. 22 (i) Death of a slave actually under the rod was to be punished. 23 (ii) Death by 
negligence was punishable by death. 24 (iii) Accidental homicide. The avenger of blood was 
to be escaped by flight to the cities of refuge till the death of the high priest. 25 (iv) Uncertain 
murder was to be expiated by disavowal and sacrifices by the elders of the nearest city. 26 (v) 
Assault was to be punished by lex talionis, or damages. 27 3. Adultery was punishable by 
death of both offenders; the rape of a married or betrothed woman by death of the offender. 28 
(ii) The rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin was to be compensated by marriage, with 

1 Deuteronomy xv, 1-11. 2 Exodus xxii, 25-27 ; Deuteronomy xxiii, 19-20. 

3 Deuteronomy xxiv, 6,10-13, 17,18. 4 Exodus xxx, 12-16. 5 Numbers xviii, 18-24. 6 Ibid, 24-32. 

7 Deuteronomy xiv, 22-28. 8 Deuteronomy xxvi, 1-15; Numbers xviii, 12-13. 9 Numbers xviii, 15-18. 

10 Leviticus xix, 9-10; Deuteronomy xxiv, 19-22. 11 Deuteronomy xxiii, 24, 25. 12 Deuteronomy xxiv, 15. 

13 Numbers xviii, 8-31. 14 Exodus xxii, 20. 15 Leviticus xx, 1-5. 16 Deuteronomy xiii, xvii, 2-5. 

17 Exodus xxii, 18; Deuteronomy xviii, 9-22 ; Leviticus xix, 31. 18 Leviticus xxiv, 15-16. 

19 Numbers xv, 32-36. 20 Exodus xxi, 15-17 ; Leviticus xx, 9; Deuteronomy xxi, 18-21. 

21 Compare I. Kings xxi, 10-14; II. Chronicles xxiv, 21. 22 Exodus xxi, 12-14; Deuteronomy xix, 11-13. 

23 Exodus xxi, 20, 21. 24 Exodus xxi, 28, 30. 25 Numbers xxxv, 9-28; Deuteronomy iv, 41-43 ; xix, 4-10. 

28 Deuteronomy xxi, 1-9. 27 Exodus xxi, 18, 19, 22, 25; Leviticus xxiv, 19, 20. 28 Deuteronomy xxii, 13-27. 



JUDICIAL AND ROYAL POWER. 


361 


dowry—50 shekels—and without power of divorce; or, if she be refused, by payment of full 
dowry. 1 (iii) Unlawful marriages — incestuous — were to be punished; some by death, some 
by childlessness.' 4. Theft was to be punished by fourfold or double restitution. A nocturnal 
robber might be slain as an outlaw.' 1 (ii) Trespass and injury of things lent were to be com¬ 
pensated. 1 (iii) Perversion of justice — by bribes, threats, etc.— and especially oppression of 
strangers, were strictly forbidden. 5 (iv) Kidnapping was punishable by death. 6 5. False 
witnesses were to be punished by lex talionis ; 7 slander of a wife’s chastity, by fine and loss 
of power of divorce. 8 


III.—LAWS, JUDICIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. 

A. Judicial. («) Local judges—generally Levites, as being more skilled in the Law — 
were appointed for all ordinary matters by the people, with the approbation of the supreme 
authority (as of Moses in the Wilderness), throughout the land. 9 (b) Appeal to the priests, at 
the holy place, or to the judge. Their sentence was final and to be accepted under pain of 
death. 10 (c) Two witnesses at least were required in capital matters. 11 (d) Punishment, except 
by special command, was to be personal and not to extend to the family. 12 Stripes were allowed 
but limited, 13 to avoid outrage on human frame. These regulations were set aside to a great 
extent in later times under the kings of Israel, and in still later times by the Sanhedrim, as 
the supreme court of the nation, after the return from Captivity. 

B. Of the Royal Power. This was limited by law as written and formally accepted 
by the king; and directly forbidden to be despotic; 14 yet he had power of taxation (one-tenth); 
and of compulsory service; 15 and could declare war. 16 There are distant traces of “mutual 
contract,” as in the leagues of David 17 and Joash 18 with their people, the remonstrance with 
Rehoboam being not extraordinary. 19 The princes of the congregation or heads of tribes 20 seem 
to have had authority under Joshua to act for the people; and in later times “ the princes of 
Judah ” seem to have controlled both the king and the priests. 21 

IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL AND CEREMONIAL LAW. 

A. The Laws Pertaining to Sacrifice, considered as the sign and the appointed 
means of reconciliation and union with God, on which communion with him depended and also 
as a means to maintaining the holiness of the people. 

1. The ordinary sacrifices —of which we have fully treated, namely: The burnt offering; 
the meat offering; the peace offering; the sin and trespass offerings, for sins of trespass and of 
nature. 22 

2. Extraordinary sacrifices, (i) At the consecration of the priests. 23 (ii) The purification 
of women. 24 (iii) The cleansing of lepers. 25 (iv) On the great day of atonement. 26 (v) On the 
great festivals. 27 

B. Laws of Holiness — arising from union with God through sacrifice. 

1. Holiness of persons, (a) Holiness of the whole people, as “children of God;” 28 as shown 
in : (i) The dedication of the firstborn ; 29 and the offering of all firstlings and first fruits. 30 

I Exodus xxii, 16,17 ; Deuteronomy xxii, 28, 29. 2 Leviticus xx. 8 Exodus xxii, 1-4. 4 Exodus xxii, 5-15. 

5 Exodus xxiii, 9. et seq. 6 Deuteronomy xxiv, 7. 7 Exodus xxiii, 1-3; Deuteronomy xix, 16-21. 

8 Deuteronomy xxii, 13-19. 9 Deuteronomy xvi, 18. 10 Deuteronomy xvii, 8-13 ; compare Exodus xviii, 26. 

II Numbers xxxv, 30; Deuteronomy xvii, 6, 7. 12 Deuteronomy xxiv, 16. 13 Deuteronomy xxv, 1-3. 

14 Deuteronomy xvii, 14-20; compare 1. Samuel x, 25. 15 1. Samuel viii, 10-18. 16 1. Samuel xi, 5-7. 

17 II. Samuel v, 3. 18 II. Kings xi, 17. 19 1. Kings xii, 1-6. 20 Joshua ix, 15. 

21 Jeremiah xxvi, 10-24, xxxviii, 4, 5. 22 Leviticus i-vi. 23 Leviticus viii, ix. 24 Leviticus xii. 

25 Leviticus xiii. 26 Leviticus xvi. 27 Leviticus xxiii. 

28 Exodus xix, 5, 6; Leviticus xi, xv, xvii, xviii; Deuteronomy xiv, 1-21. "Exodus xiii, 2, 12, 13, xxii, 29, 30. 

30 Deuteronomy xxvi. 



362 


LAWS OF HOLINESS. 


( b ) Distinction between clean and unclean food. 1 (c) Provision for purification. 2 (d) Laws 
against disfigurement; against excessive scourging. 3 (e) Laws against unnatural marriage and 
lust. 4 

2. Holiness of Priests and Levites. {a) Their consecration. 5 ( b ) Their special qualifica¬ 
tions and restrictions. 6 (c) Their authority and rights. 7 

3. Holiness of Places and Things, (a) The tabernacle, with the ark, the veil, the altar, 
the laver, the candlesticks, etc., and the priestly robes. 8 (b) The holy place chosen for the 
permanent erection of the tabernacle, where only all sacrifices were to be offered, and all tithes, 
first fruits, vows, etc., to be given or eaten. 9 

4. Holiness of Times, (a) The sabbath. 10 ( b ) The sabbatical year. 11 (c) The year of 
jubilee. 12 (d) The passover. 13 (e) The feast of weeks—that of pentecost. 14 (/) The feast of 
tabernacles. 15 (g) The feast of trumpets. 16 (h) The day of atonement. 17 

The above is a fair compendium of the various laws — civil, criminal, ecclesiastical—of the 
Hebrew people. It will be seen how full and comprehensive they are, and especially how they 
all tend to holiness of life, obedience to God, and all righteousness toward men. It is not 
surprising that many of the laws of the Hebrew people survive on our own statute books to 
this day, nothing so good or complete having ever been devised by man. 

1 Leviticus xi; Deuteronomy xiv. 2 Leviticus xii-xv ; Deuteronomy xxiii, 1-14. 

3 Leviticus xix, 27 ; Deuteronomy xiv, 1, xxv, 1-3. * Leviticus xviii, xx. 5 Exodus xxix; Leviticus viii, ix. 

G Leviticus xxi, xxii, 1-9. 7 Numbers xviii; Deuteronomy xvii, 1-6, 8-13. 8 Exodus xxv-xxviii, xxx. 

9 Numbers xviii. 10 Exodus xx, 9-11, xxiii, 12. 11 Exodus xxiii, 10,11; Leviticus xxv, 1-7. 

12 Leviticus xxv, 8-16. 13 Exodus xii, 3-27, xiii, 4-16. 14 Leviticus xxiii, 15, etc. 16 Leviticus xxiii, 33-43. 

16 Leviticus xxiii, 23-25. 17 Leviticus xxiii, 26-32, etc. 





u 



ANCIENT CEDARS OF LEBANON. 





















BOOK VI. 


FROM THE INVASION OF CANAAN TO THE LAST OF THE JUDGES. 


BY 

Rev. R. S. Mac Arthur, D. D. 

PASTOR OF CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH, 


NEW YORK CITY, N. Y. 




* 
























BOOK VI. 


FROM THE INVASION OF CANAAN TO THE LAST OF THE JUDGES. 


CHAPTER I. 

THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN. 

T HE conquest of Canaan marks a new era in the history of civilization and religion. It was 
a conquest not only for Israel, but also for humanity. It was a turning point in the 
history of our race; it was the triumph of civilization over barbarism, and of true religion 
over a gross heathenism. Every intelligent student of history must be interested in a chapter 
so replete with instruction and warning as the story of the conquest of Palestine. It is true 
that in this history we are brought into a more secular and human atmosphere than that which 
prevails in most parts of the Bible; still all history is sacred history to the devout believer, and 
it ought to be equally so to the philosophical student. The distinction between profane and 
sacred history is imaginary and not real. God’s hand is never withdrawn from the affairs of 
men; at certain times its presence may be more marked than at others, but whether seen by us 
or not it is ever present, moving armies, controlling nations, and governing empires for the 
glory of God and for the good of men. Rightly understood, all things are tending toward the 
triumph of truth and the establishment of righteousness. Before the advent of Christ all 
events converged toward his coming, and since that coming all have diverged from his cradle 
and his cross. Christ’s advent is the pivotal point around which all historical events revolve in 
smaller or larger orbits. There ought, therefore, to be no unwillingness to use such a phrase 
as “The Conquest of Palestine”; for while it is true that in studying this subject we are 
concerned with the conquest of a country only a little larger than the State of New Hampshire, 
and a little larger than Wales, and only about one-third the size of Scotland, still its conquest 
was a most important part of a great human and divine movement for uplifting the nations of 
the earth. We, therefore, utterly miss the meaning of this invasion if we think of it as only 
one of many migrations from one country to another. That element it possessed, for those who 
were displaced by the Israelites had once themselves been invaders and had displaced still 
earlier invaders; but this conquest is unique among the great providential movements in the 
world’s history. 

The old race of “ giants,” 1 comes to us from the dim light of primeval ages. Doubtless 
the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites had united with the Philistines to invade and largely 
to destroy former populations; then came the Israelites; and the land was afterward invaded 
by Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, French, and 
English; 2 and perhaps other invasions may yet take place. But the conquest of Canaan by 
Joshua had a larger purpose and a wider influence than such invasions as we have just named. 

1 Deuteronomy ii, 20; Joshua xiii, 12. 2 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary.” 

365 





EARLY CANAANITISH WARS. 


366 

In this purpose and influence this conquest stands quite alone. Like some of the invasions 
made later, it was the fulfillment of divine prophecy, the infliction of threatened punishment, 
and the bestowal of promised blessing. The victories of Joshua, furthermore, are types and 
prophecies of still greater spiritual blessings which God had promised to his chosen people. 
Not to have this larger view of this conquest is to miss its most significant lessons. He is but 
a prejudiced student of history who refuses to recognize the purpose of the Almighty in the 
invasion made by Joshua. 

There were several stages in the conquest of Palestine. Strictly speaking, the beginning 
of this conquest extended beyond the time of Joshua; it began when the passage of the brook 
Zered was accomplished under the leadership of Moses. 1 The final conquest was not made 
until hundreds of years after, when David entered Jerusalem in triumph. 2 But we may with 
propriety speak of the conquest in connection with the territory afterward known as Palestine, 
when it became, in a general sense, subject to Joshua. The first stage in this conquest was the 
occupation of the district east of the Jordan; then came the victories over the original inhab¬ 
itants on the western side of the river, covering its three great divisions, the valley of the 
Jordan, the southern and central mountains, later known as Judea and Samaria, and the 
northern mountains, finally known as Galilee. 3 The conquest of eastern Palestine prepared 
the way for crossing the river and winning victories on the western shore. The territory 
east of the Jordan has always been romantic, beautiful, and mysterious. On that side lived 
portions of the aboriginal race, under the name of “ Emim ” and “ Zamzummin,” or simply 
“ Zuzim.” 4 These aboriginal tribes were once expelled by the tribes of Moab and Ammon, and 
they, in turn, were dispossessed by two Canaanitish chiefs, who manifested much ambition and 
acquired much power. 5 

The approaching Israelites were preceded by thrilling stories of God’s dealings with them 
and of his promises on their behalf. Their attack on the Canaanitish kings was assisted by 
immense swarms of hornets which, though never uncommon in Palestine, 6 seemed to have been 
miraculously multiplied and employed on this occasion. 7 The rough mountaineers were forced 
by the hornets into the plains, and there the conflict began, and there the victory was won. 
Sihon, who occupied the district between the Arnon and Jabbok, having wrested it from Balak’s 
predecessor, had established himself at Heshbon. 8 The victory over him was duly celebrated in 
a thrilling war song, which was often sung in later times as illustrative of power and bravery on 
the part of God’s people. 9 At Jahaz, near the rich pastures of Moab, the decisive battle was 
fought. 10 There the slingers and archers of Israel displayed wonderful valor, matched by corre¬ 
sponding skill. Sihon was overthrown, the army retreated, and, seeking to stay its thirst, was 
finally destroyed in the bed of a mountain stream. 11 

Long did the memory of the contrast between the former glory and the present defeat of the 
great chief survive in the triumphant songs of Israel. The five Arabian chiefs of the tribe of 
Midian, who had been the vassals of Sihon, urged the king of Moab to destroy the invaders by 
the curse of Balaam; but he was powerless to accomplish their wish. 12 But the licentious rites 
of the Midianites were likely to lead the people of God into degrading forms of sin. They 
were, however, saved by the sacred war headed by the priest Phinehas. 13 The Ark was brought 
out, a blast from the sacred trumpet was heard, and the people were religiously aroused. The 
chiefs of Midian were slain, and the mysterious prophet shared their fate. 14 Their pastoral 
possessions became the property of the conquerors, much wealth in gold and oxen, sheep 
and asses was secured, and, in harmony with the customs of war at the time, a terrible 

I Deuteronomy ii, 13. 2 II. Samuel v, 6, 7. 3 Stanley, “Jewish Church,” I, p. 230. 4 Deuteronomy ii, 10. 

5 Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” I, Lecture IX. s Deuteronomy i, 44. 7 Exodus xxiii, 28. 

8 Numbers xxi, 26 ; Joshua xii, 2,3. 9 Numbers xxi, 27, el seq. 10 Numbers xxi, 23. 

II Josephus, “Antiquities,” IV, v. 12 Numbers xxii. 13 Numbers xxxi, 6-8. u Ibid. 




ELIM. 























368 


ISRAEL WEST OF THE JORDAN. 


slaughter of the conquered tribe took place. It is thought that about this time Rameses III., 1 
of Egypt, made an incursion into Canaan, and thus Sihon was prevented from obtaining help 
from his kinsmen on the west of the Jordan. 2 On marched the triumphant hosts toward the 
Jordan. Soon Og, the king of a territory extending from the Jabbok to the base of Hermon, 
was attacked by the invaders. His “ iron bedstead,” whatever this was, was carried off by the 
Ammonites as their trophy, and soon the whole country, part of which was known then and 
afterward as Gilead, with its walled and fortified cities, was in possession of Israel, while other 
chiefs and tribes also fell before their resistless power. 3 

The tribes of Reuben and Gad were nomadic to a marked degree. They possessed a great 
multitude of cattle, and so desired the land east of the Jordan as their territory. These tribes 
never entirely threw off the peculiarities of their patriarchal ancestors. They divided the 
kingdom of Silion between them, thus occupying the territory between the Arnon and the 
Jabbok, and the eastern side of the Jordan valley all the way up to the Sea of Galilee. 4 
Reuben was strictly pastoral, and his tribe rendered but little aid in the struggles of the nation. 
“Unstable as water,” 5 'he could not excel, and finally he vanished away like any desert tribe. 
In the song of Deborah bitter complaints were uttered against him for his indifference, 6 if 
not cowardice. Gad occupied the forest region south of the Jabbok. 7 From his tribe came 
the eleven valiant chiefs who crossed the Jordan in floodtime to assist the outlawed David. 8 
They were swift as gazelles, and they were fierce as lions. 9 Manasseh on the eastern side, like 
their brethren on the western shore, possessed something of the pastoral character of Reuben 
and Gad, but had also a genuinely martial spirit. We might well expect a separation to occur 
between these pastoral tribes and those who crossed the Jordan ; such a controversy was almost 
inevitable, and traces of it are found constantly in their history. The connection with the rest 
of the nation, however, was never entirely broken. Their territory was most congenial to these 
pastoral peoples. It is often described because of its fitness for the support of flocks and for its 
beauty and fertility. This land was often a place of refuge. It is wild, poetic, and mysterious; 
and it is immortalized in thrilling psalms and romantic histories. 

There were inducements for the Israelites to remain on the eastern side of the Jordan; but 
had they so done, the whole history of Judaism, of civilization, and of Christianity would have 
been changed. Under the impulse of their high destiny, they pressed forward; they were as 
certainly drawn from the eastern to the western side as was Abraham from Mesopotamia, or 
Moses from Egypt. 10 They were now to be transformed from a nomadic to a settled people; 
from pastoral tribes to agricultural communities. They were to send out their influence to the 
western world, and to have their part in the great theater of progress to the end of time. Had 
they yielded to the charms of the fertile valleys and rugged hills on the eastern side of the 
Jordan, they would have missed their great opportunity; they would have remained insig¬ 
nificant tribes, instead of becoming a mighty people; they might all have been, like Reuben, 
“unstable as water.” 

It is fitting at this point that we get a definite idea of the land to be conquered. It has 
been known at various periods by different names. Sometimes it has been called “ The Land 
of Canaan,” from the original settler, Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, who divided it among 
his eleven sons, 11 and each of whom became finally the head of a distinct people. The name 
Canaan applied especially to the country west of the Jordan, 12 and was opposed to “The Land of 
Gilead ” on the east. It has also been called “ The Land of Promise,” because of the promise 
given to Abraham that it should be possessed by his posterity. 13 It has also been known as 
“ The Land of the Hebrew,” as the descendants of Abraham were called Hebrews, the word 

I “ Bible for Learners,” I, 328. 2 “ Bible for Learners,” Drs. Oort, Hooykaas and Kuenen, Vol. I, p. 328. 

8 Numbers xxi, 33-35. * Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” I, pp. 241, 242. 5 Genesis xlix, 4. 6 Judges v, 15. 

7 Joshua xiii, 24. 8 1. Chronicles xii, 14. * I. Chronicles xii, 8. 10 Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” I, p. 250. 

II Genesis x, 15-18. 12 Numbers xxxii, 32. 18 Genesis xii, 7. 




PLAIN OF ESDRAELON. 
























370 


THE LAND OF PROMISE. 


“ Hebrew ” meaning “ crossed over/’ and applied by the Canaanites to Abraham upon his 
crossing the Euphrates; or perhaps the word came from Eber, the last of the long-lived 
patriarchs. Sometimes it was named “ The Land of Israel,” from the Israelites or posterity of 
Jacob who there found a home. This name occurs frequently in the Old Testament; it 
included at one time the tract of ground on both sides of the Jordan given by God to the 
Hebrews for an inheritance. Later, however, the term was often restricted to the territory 
occupied by the ten tribes. It is also called “ The Land of Judah.” This title originally was 
limited to the territory occupied by the tribe of Judah; but after the separation of the ten tribes 
“ The Land of Judah ” included the territories which belonged both to Judah and Benjamin; 
and the whole country, even that beyond Jordan, retained this name even under the dominion 
of the Romans. “ The Holy Land ” is a name which seems to have been used by the Hebrews 
during and after their captivity in Babylon. This name, “Terra Sancta,” or “Holy Land,” was 
the most common one throughout the Middle Ages. The name “ Palestine,” or the land of the 
immigrant, was derived from the Philistines, who probably came from Egypt and expelled the 
aboriginal inhabitants, and then settled on the shores of the Mediterranean. This name was 
finally given to all the country, although they never really were its masters. Heathen writers 
have variously used the names Palestine, Syria, and Phoenicia. The population increased so 
that probably it was not less than 5,000,000 in the most prosperous times in the history of 
Israel. Canaan was bounded on the west by the Mediterranean Sea, on the north by the high 
ranges of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, on the east by Arabia Deserta, and on the south by 
Edom and the desert of Zin and Paran. These boundaries may be differently described accord¬ 
ing to the nomenclature which may be chosen. The size of the country varied at different 
times; but its extreme length seems to have been about 140 to 180 miles, and its average width 
from 40 to 60 miles. It contained an area of nearly 11,500 square miles, more or less, accord¬ 
ing to the changes in its boundaries. It lay on the extreme western edge of the East. Asia 
seemed to have rejected this strip of land, impassable deserts separating it from Mesopotamia 
and Arabia. It lies on the shore of the Mediterranean, as if waiting to send out its influences 
to the new world. It became the highway for communication between Egypt and Assyria. 
Like the Netherlands in Europe, it was the arena on which for successive ages hostile powers 
fought their battles and contended for the control of vast empires. It lay in the center of the 
great countries of antiquity, and yet was remarkably isolated. In area and conformation, the 
country has been frequently compared to the State of New Hampshire. “Along the shore of 
the Mediterranean run the Sheplielah and the Maritime Plain, broken only by the bold spur 
of Mount Carmel; parallel to this is a long range of hills; . . . . beyond the Jordan 

valley runs the straight, unbroken, purple line of the mountains of Moab and Gilead. The 
country from north to south may be represented by four parallel bands — the seaboard, the hill 
country, the Jordan valley, and the transjordanic range.” 1 Few countries are more beautifully 
diversified than Canaan, with its mountains, plains, rivers, and valleys. It is essentially a 
mountainous country; its principal mountains are Lebanon, Carmel, Tabor, Gilead, Hermon, 
and the Mount of Olives. The plains of the Mediterranean, of Esdraelon, and of Jericho are 
associated with historic events of the greatest importance. The chief rivers are the Jordan, 
the Leontes, the Arnon, the Sihor, the Jabbok, and the Kishon. The lakes or seas are the 
Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, and Lake Merom. At the northern boundary are the lofty 
peaks of Lebanon and Hermon. At the base of Hermon are the sources of the Jordan, “The 
Descender,” which flows south with innumerable windings into the Dead Sea. From its source 
to its mouth it has a descent of nearly 3,000 feet; its windings are so numerous that in a space 
of sixty-five miles, in a straight line from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, it traverses, in its 
innumerable curves, at least 200 miles. 


Farrar, “ Life of Christ,” p. 67. 



ORIGIN OF THE CANAANITES. 


371 


The original inhabitants were of various tribes, and portions of their history are involved 
in great obscurity. The Canaanites, as we have seen, were descendants of Ham, while 
Abraham and his kindred were descendants of Shem. The Hivites dwelt in the northern 
part of the country at the foot of Mount Herrnon. 1 They were defeated, together with the 
united forces of northern Canaan, by Joshua. 8 The Canaanites, in the restricted meaning of 
the word, inhabited the northern valley and the plains west of the Jordan on the coast of the 
Mediterranean. The Girgashites also dwelt on the west of the Jordan. 3 The Jebusites 
occupied the hill country around Jerusalem whose ancient name was “ Jehus.” 4 The Ben- 
jamites, to whom this region was assigned, did not fully drive out the Jebusites; it was David 
who first captured the citadel of Jehus. 5 The Amorites, in the earlier history of Palestine, 
inhabited the region south of Jerusalem on the western side of the Dead Sea. 6 Later they 
spread themselves out over the mountains which formed the southeastern part of Canaan. 
They had, as we have seen, before the time of Moses, two kingdoms on the eastern side of 
Jordan. The Hittites, or children of Heth, dwelt among the Amorites in the mountainous 
district of the south, 7 the district afterward called the “ Mountain of Judah.” 8 In Abraham’s 
time they possessed Hebron. 9 After the invasion of Canaan they moved farther north. The 
Perizzites seem to have occupied various parts of Canaan; and the name is closely associated 
with that of the Canaanites when Abraham 10 entered the land. In addition to these seven tribes 
there were others of the same parentage, such as the''Arkites, Arvadites, and other tribes of 
different origins, such as the Anakim, the Amalekites, and still others. 11 Taking these people as 
a whole, at the time of the Israelitish invasion, their history is striking, instructive, and inter¬ 
esting. The Israelites regarded them as monsters of iniquity. They, in the judgment of their 
conquerors, deserved absolute extermination; but we can see that they, also, in the divine 
providence, had a mission to fulfill. They had their part to perform as parents of civilization, 
founders of literature, and pioneers of commerce. 

The Phoenician power attained its highest development when Israel sojourned in Egypt — 
at least so recent discoveries seem to show. With a comparatively high degree of civilization 
came luxury; and with luxury eventually came demoralization. This law finds its illustration 
in the history of all peoples, in all countries, and in all centuries. Modern discoveries are giving 
special interest to these early inhabitants; and still fuller investigation will doubtless add results 
of greater value to those already secured. It thus comes to pass that much of interest gathers 
about this Phoenician race. The aboriginal inhabitants, in the view of many writers, once 
belonged to a region so dim and shadowy that they were called Rephaim, a word afterward used 
vaguely to describe the ghostly guardians of the under-world. 12 They appear before us amid 
the shadows of that remote time, as lofty in stature and fierce in warfare. On the west of the 
Jordan they appear especially under two names, the Anakim in the southern mountains, and the 
Avites on the Maritime Plain. 13 Soon came powerful chiefs belonging to the Phoenician or 
Canaanitish branch of the Semitic race. The Canaanites, or Lowlanders, occupied the lowlands 
along the coast. But it is most interesting to remember that Canaanite is but another name for 
Phoenician, and that the accursed race, as it appears in the Books of Joshua and Judges, is the 
same as that from which Greece received letters, commerce, and civilization. 14 Indeed, the Sep- 
tuagint translators, in two cases, use Phoenician rather than Canaanite. 15 Had they adopted this 
word throughout, our ideas of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine would be vastly more favor¬ 
able than they now are. They certainly were a remarkable people; hints are given presenting 
them to us with their dusky complexions, their gigantic forms, their monarchical institutions, 

'Joshua xi, 3. 2 Joshua x, xi. 3 Joshua xxiv, 11. 4 Joshua xviii, 28. 5 1. Chronicles xi, 5. 

6 Genesis xiv, 7-13. 7 Joshua xi, 3. 8 Joshua xx, 7. "Genesis xxiii, 2. 10 Genesis xiii, 17. 

u Genesis x, 17, 18; Numbers xiii, 29. 15 Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” I, p. 230, anil the authorities there quoted. 

13 Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” I, p. 231; Deuteronomy ii, 21-23. 14 Stanley, “Jewish Cliurch.” 1, p. 232. 

15 LXX; Exodus xvi, 35; Joshua v, 1. 

26 



372 


CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CANAANITES. 


their superiority in social arts, their treasures of brass, iron, and gold, their ability in erecting 
fortified towns, and their observance of the rite of circumcision. Their religious worship appears 
to have been peculiarly degrading, consisting of human sacrifices, licentious orgies, and the 
service of many divinities. As we might naturally suppose, the Gentile accounts of this people 
showed but little conception of the degrading and debasing cruelties and nameless sins which 
true Israelites loathed — sins found in connection with the worship of Baal, Ashtoreth, and 
Moloch; and yet these are substantially the same deities so familiar to us under the names of 
Jupiter, Apollo, Venus, Hercules, and Adonis. 1 In the mythology of Greece we have the bright 
side of this heathenism; but in the religious worship of these early inhabitants of Palestine we 
have the horribly dark side. The legend of Cadmus shows how they introduced letters to the 
Greeks; and probably the Hebrews, also, derived their letters from the same source. They 
founded colonies at Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Asia Minor, Sicily, and Spain. We know, too, that 
Carthage derived its name of Punic, and probably its language, also, from this same people. 
The Bible presents them, according to some interpreters, as a Turanian race; 3 and their adop¬ 
tion of the Syrian language, authorities claim, does not disprove their Turanian origin. It 
certainly is interesting that under the name of Hittite, or Chittite, they were among the leading 
races of that early day. Carchemish was their capital, and they held a position of equality with 
the Babylonian and Egyptian powers. Recent researches at Carchemish, made in 1874 and 
1875, by Mr. Skene, the British Consul at Aleppo, seem to establish this fact. Previous to 
these discoveries, we were dependent upon tradition and monuments for our knowledge of this 
people. Joshua gave their power a terrible blow, and Rameses III., in his expedition against 
the Syrians, gave the final blow to their preeminence. 3 Their religion seems to have been the 
parents of the religions of Greece and Rome. Baal was equivalent to Zeus; and Ashtoreth 
possessed the characteristics of Artemis and Aphrodite. The worship of Asherah, the proto¬ 
type of Rhea or Cybele, combined certain phallic rites “ with the idea of the fecundity of 
nature.” It is not necessary here to trace all the points of similarity between their worship and 
that of the classic nations; it is sufficient to say that the chief deities known to Greece were 
derived from the Phoenician pantheon, and that they probably had a similar place in Babylonian 
worship. They not only gave the Greeks the letters of the alphabet, but also much information 
in astronomy, in navigation, and in the manufacture of glass, purple, and many other things. 
No other people ever rivaled the Canaanites, or Phoenicians, in the mixture of bloodshed and 
debauchery with which they worshiped their deities. 4 All their rites were stained with blood. 

They seem to have been divided like the ancient Greeks into a number of separate states; 
many of which were probably monarchical, but some had a republican form of government. 
Their kings seemed to have possessed autocratic power, as is implied in several references to 
them in the Book of Joshua; 5 and the people seem to have been, on the whole, peaceful in their 
habits and mercantile in their pursuits. There were, however, leagues formed by both the 
northern and southern tribes for offense and defense. 6 Perhaps, indeed, the great Hittite power 
was already on the wane when Joshua made his triumphant entry into Canaan. They seem, at 
one time, to have owed a sort of feudal allegiance to their Hittite head at Carchemish. 7 Tyre 
and Sidon, even to a late period, showed the remarkable degree of their commercial achievement 
and mercantile enterprise. For trading purposes they established settlements on the Mediter¬ 
ranean shore. Other nations of the times were not sailors; the Jews thought of the sea with 
fear, but the hardy Phoenicians ventured beyond the Pillars of Hercules. They established a 
large trade in tin and other metals, with the inhabitants of otherwise unknown islands. 8 They 
have left footprints in Spain which remain until this day. This was the character of the 

'Stanley, “Jewish Church,” I, p. 234. 2 Genesis ix, 18, x, 15-18. 8 Introduction to Joshua in “Pulpit Com¬ 

mentary,” pp. 24, 25, el set].; Wright, “ The Empire of the Hittites,” pp. 35,114, 115. 

4 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary,” p. 26. 5 Joshua ii, 1, 2, ix, 1, x, 1, 3, 5, xi, 1, 2. 

6 Introduction to Joshua in ‘ ‘ Pulpit Commentary,” p. 27. 7 Ibid. 8 1 bid. 



THE TASK BEFORE JOSHUA. 


373 


original inhabitants of Palestine. Against such a people did Joshua have to contend. His 
military skill, his personal bravery, and the help of God, were all needed in lighting so powerful 
a foe. The victories he achieved have, to a great degree, shaped the moral progress of the 
world ; for both Christianity and Mohammedanism have sprung from these conquests. Hence, 
the reason for declaring that Joshua’s conquest of Canaan was an event of world-wide impor¬ 
tance. It was an event so great in its influence that we might well expect God would mark it 
with portent and prodigy, and many miraculous displays of divine power. 

We have already Seen that the task before Joshua was no holiday encounter. He was to 
war against one of the oldest and greatest nations of antiquity. Thothmes III. brought much 
booty from Palestine and adjacent countries, and the records of Rameses II. give evidence of 
the power of these people in the time of Moses. Valuable possessions, such as gold, cattle, 
ivory, ebony, horses, chariots inlaid with gold and silver, fragrant woods, gold vessels, orna¬ 
ments of lapis lazuli, vases of silver, precious stones, and plunder of every kind such as would be 
produced in a rich and civilized country, were brought to Egypt from Palestine by Thothmes. 1 
It was thus no vacant territory that Joshua was to enter, and no savage people that he was 
to overcome. His difficulties were numerous and great. The Canaanites were furnished with 
horses and iron chariots, or at least chariots armed with sharp sickles at the hub of the wheels. 
Some suppose that such chariots were unknown at this time, but it is certain that there were 
chariots in some way strengthened by iron. 2 Joshua had to take fortresses and to destroy 
formidable leagues of brave chieftains and ambitious kings. Against soldiers thus equipped he 
could only oppose a rude, half-armed militia, with inadequate training and miserable equipment. 
The Israelites were approaching as invaders; the Canaanites were fighting for their homes and 
native land. The Israelites came as strangers to the intricate mountain paths and dangerous 
caves; the Canaanites were familiar with every inch of the soil in valley and on mountain. 
Every element within them was thus aroused to defend their land and save themselves from 
hated invaders. 

But the Hebrews came with a fiery enthusiasm and a holy energy; like the valiant Franks 
of the fifth century they came to seek a new home. They were inspired by religious zeal; they 
believed themselves to be the instruments of God to destroy his foes and to establish his truth. 
They had failed forty years before because they were not wholly loyal to God. The forty years 
of wandering in the Wilderness, with its painful discipline and frequent punishment received 
because of idolatrous tendencies, and especially because of God’s recent display of righteous 
wrath against their partial submission to the abominations of Baal-peor, 3 had wrought wonderful 
changes in their character. They were now recovered from their wandering, and were fierce 
and zealous for God. They were, therefore, inspired with a holy enthusiasm and an irresistible 
energy. They believed that God was going before them, that he would fight their battles and 
would win their victories. Though marching on foot, they believed they could capture chariots 
and horses, overthrow walled cities, and win glorious victories for God. In this spirit of lofty 
enthusiasm and holy inspiration, they crossed the Jordan and entered the land of promise. 


1 Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 384, and authorities there quoted. 

2 Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 383, and his authorities. 3 Numbers xxv, 5. 



CHAPTER II. 

JOSHUA AND HIS WORK. 


TX7TTH the exception, probably, of the Book of Daniel, no other books in the Bible have 
" ' given rise to more discussion than the Pentateuch and Joshua as to date and authorship. 
The great miracles of the Book of Joshua have sometimes even created a suspicion regarding 
its reliability as history. The Talmud affirms that Joshua was its author, that Eleazar wrote 
the account of Joshua’s death, and that Phinehas gave the account of the death of Eleazar. 
The earlier Jewish tradition considered it a contemporary document. Keil and some others 
believe that it was composed twenty-five or thirty years after Joshua’s death. 1 Critic follows 
critic, showing the absurdity of his predecessor’s opinion, only to have his opinions in turn 
reduced to similar absurdities by his successors. It is not necessary to go into a full statement 
of the various theories regarding the authorship of this book. As a rule, the destructive critics 
assume that there is no place for the supernatural in the history; that the parts which claim to 
be prophecies were written after the occurrence of the events which they assume to foretell; 
that all the prophecies are legendary additions to historic facts; that the book is the work of 
many authors; and, finally, that the critics may authoritatively determine the authors of the 
various portions of the record. But the contradictions of these critics go far to neutralize their 
authority. The methods some of them employ, if applied to Hume or Macaulay, to Motley or 
to Prescott, to Shakespeare or to Milton, would reduce their writings to hopeless confusion and 
meaningless absurdities. The lofty assumptions of some of these critics regarding their prede¬ 
cessors are equaled only by the assumption of their successors regarding themselves. Ingenious 
though many of these theories are, those of their opponents are equally ingenious, and equally 
untrustworthy. Ewald regarded the Book of Joshua as “ a composition of the Deuteronomist 
in the time of Manasseh.” But where in the book can any conclusive evidence be found that 
it was written in the time of Manasseh? That there are many and great difficulties in the 
book all admit; but that there are more numerous and still greater difficulties in the theories of 
some of these critics may be fearlessly affirmed. That the book was written at an early period 
is evident from the entire absence of reference to the condition of Israel in later periods of its 
history. The book gives no evidence of the regal state which marked the history in later 
times. It seems absolutely certain that it was written before the time of David, for it is 
affirmed that up to the time of writing the Jebusites dwelt among the people. 2 The reference 
to the place which God should choose 3 indicates that the temple had not then been erected, nor 
even its site selected. The reference to the Gibeonites, 4 without mentioning Saul’s neglect of 
the promise of protection 5 made to them, suggests that the book was written before Saul’s time. 
Quite too much has been made by some critics of the phrase “ until this day,” as suggesting a 
late authorship for the book. The writer indulges in the habit of repetition which is always 
characteristic of the early literary period in a nation’s history. 6 Verbal criticism is seldom 
authoritative in fixing dates or authors; but there are several striking verbal peculiarities which 
greatly help us in reaching decisions both as to author and date. 

The writer’s familiarity with the history of the tribe of Judah indicates that he was a 
resident within the limits of that tribe. A similar remark applies to his knowledge of the 

1 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary.” 2 Joshua xv, 63. 3 Joshua ix, 27. 

4 Joshua ix, 5 II. Samuel xxi, 6 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary.” 

37 < 



TIIE BOOK OF JOSHUA. 


375 


personal history of Caleb, 1 and of the city of Hebron. 2 The almost uniform Jewish tradition 
is that it was written by Joshua; 3 and several Christian writers down to recent times, among 
whom are Koning and, so far as concerns the first division of the book, Havernick, 4 so believe. 
No one could so well write the account of Joshua’s frequent intercourse with God as Joshua 
himself; 5 and no one was so likely as Joshua to commit to writing the two addresses, 6 delivered 
in circumstances of so great solemnity, which were Joshua’s legacy to the people. He had, 
also, peculiar facilities of knowing the events related and for collecting documents and making 
records. The example of Moses in this regard, we may fairly assume, would have its influence 
on Joshua, his pupil and successor. The additions, undoubtedly made to the book 7 after 
Josliua’s death, do not invalidate the claim that it was substantially his composition; other 
events, some of which may have occurred, or at least were completed, after Joshua’s death, may 
also have been added to the record by another writer. It is almost certain, therefore, that the 
greater part of the book was written by Joshua himself, and all parts of it soon after his death. 
The expression, “ Unto this day,” is found fourteen times in the book; blit, as already 
remarked, it does not carry the weight of evidence which many have given it, for in three 
places, 8 at least, it undoubtedly refers to a period during the twenty-five years which Joshua 
lived in Canaan; and in other instances it clearly goes to a period but a little more remote. 9 
In the other passages in which it is used there is no positive- contradiction to this interpre¬ 
tation. 10 Those who find difficulties in believing that Joshua was the author of the volume do 
not get rid of them by assigning the book to a later date, and attributing it to another author. 

It is important, also, that some reference be made to the scope and contents of the book. 
It consists of twenty-four chapters, and is divided into three main parts: (1) Conquest of 
Canaan, the first twelve chapters; (2) The Division of Canaan, the next ten chapters; (3) 
Joshua’s Farewell, the two remaining chapters. The period covered by the book is probably 
about twenty-five years. The first twelve chapters are a continuous narrative, the account being 
often so minute as to show that it was written by an eyewitness. The divine presence is 
continually felt in every part of the history. We seem to keep step with the leadership of God 
in the solemn preparation, the tremendous struggle, and the glorious victory. 

The whole style of the Book of Joshua is simple and natural. It is free from hero 
worship; it does not glory in man. But still Joshua is its chief figure, as it opens with the 
account of his installation in his high office, and closes with the touching narrative of his death. 
Attention has been called to the fact that the book stands related to the Pentateuch somewhat 
as the Book of the Acts of the Apostles does to the Gospels. 11 In the Pentateuch we have a 
statement of the laws of Judaism; in the Book of Joshua we have an illustration of the appli¬ 
cation of these laws to life and duty. The Pentateuch and the Gospels give us the youth of 
Judaism and of Christianity; the Books of Joshua and the Acts of the Apostles the manhood 
of both. In the Book of Joshua, Moses in a sense continued as a leader of the chosen people; 
in the Acts of the Apostles, Christ lives in apostles, evangelists, deacons, and martyrs, as the 
Leader of the Church. The Pentateuch and the Gospels are not primarily historic; they are 
the text-books of Judaism and Christianity. 12 They contain history, but simply enough to make 
clearer the principles which they teach; but the Books of Joshua and the Acts are distinctively 
historical. The Book of Joshua, therefore, is not simply an appendix to the Pentateuch ; and, 
strictly speaking, it is not a preface to the books that follow; it is a link between the two, and 
yet it has an independent character of its own. 

1 Compare Joshua xiv, 13-15 with xv, 13, 14, xxi, 11-13. 2 Joshua xiv, 13-15, xv, 13-19. 

8 Baba Bathra, Cap. I, fol. 14b. 4 “ MacClintock and Strong Cyclopaedia,” article on Joshua. 

5 Joshua i, 1, iii, 7, iv, 1, v, 2, 9, vi, 2, vii, 10, viii, 1. 6 Joshua xxiii, xxiv. 7 Joshua xv, 13-19, xv, 63, xix, 47, 

xxiv, 29-33. 8 Joshua xxii, 3, xxiii, 8, 9. 9 Joshua iv, 9, vii, 26, viii, 29, x, 27. 10 Joshua viii, 28, xiii, 13, xiv, 14, 

xv, 63, xvi, 10. 11 Dr. Donald Fraser, Lectures on “The Books of the Bible,” p. 78. 12 Introduction to Joshua in 

“Pulpit Commentary,” p. 8. 



THE CALL OF JOSHUA. 


376 


It would be possible to trace the similarity between Joshua and the Acts even to details. 1 
As Israel was hindered by the walls of Jericho, so the Church was hindered by the ignorance 
and the prejudice of the men of Jerusalem. At these two cities war had to begin, and their 
surrender was necessary to subsequent progress. The seven days in the one case are paralleled 
by the ten in the other. When the day of Pentecost was fully come, the trumpet of the Gospel, 
blown by the Apostle Peter, caused the walls to fall, and gave the Church its first great victory. 
As Achan sinned and suffered, so Ananias and Sapphira attempted to deceive, and suffered the 
penalty of death. As Joshua led the tribes to battlefields, so Jesus, as the true Head of 
the Church under such officers as Peter, John, Paul, and others of like faith and zeal, led the 
Church into fierce conflicts and secured for the Church glorious conquests. Antioch, Damascus, 
Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, and Pome will take their place beside the cities 
conquered by the triumphant hosts under the leadership of Joshua. There were Canaanites 
still left in the land to corrupt the Church of God in the days of the apostles as in the days of 
Joshua. The Book of Joshua bears also a close relation to Christian experience. It illustrates 
the trials of individual saints in their conflicts with sin and Satan. At the Jordan both Jesus 
and Joshua began their public ministry. The Church also has its Gilgal, with its memories of 
neglected duties and its encouragements to their performance. The Church also has its corn of 
the land ready for the nourishment of the soldiers of Christ. The Church has its spiritual foes 
as truly as had Israel; but while Joshua dies, the Captain of our Salvation lives and reigns 
forever, and gives us the assurance that our triumph shall be complete and eternal. 

“ Moses my servant is dead! ” 2 This is a truly startling announcement in the history of 
Israel. This is, also, the divine greeting to the noble Joshua. Who can be a successor to the 
great Moses? Who can take up the work which the illustrious leader and inspired lawgiver 
lays down ? Are God’s resources exhausted ? Has he no other leader for his chosen people ? 
He may not have another Moses; but another Moses is not needed. “ To every man his 
work,” 3 is a divine law. A great variety of gifts is needed in the work of the Lord, and men 
possessing a great variety of gifts are furnished by the Lord for his work. The death of the 
greatest man does not, after all, make much of a gap in the plans of God; God can bury or 
translate the leaders and still continue the march. Great trees need to be removed sometimes 
that saplings may have room to grow. Few would expect after reading, “ Now, after the death 
of Moses,” that the command would immediately be given, “ Now, therefore, arise, go over this 
Jordan; ” 4 but this is God’s method. He immediately calls another leader into his service. 
He practically tells the people not to bow their heads in too much sorrow, not to spend strength 
and time in useless tears. The loss, indeed, is great, but there shall be an element of gain even 
in the great loss. The shadow will not be long upon the path. Leaders die, but God lives, and 
his work must go forward. Let, then, his people arise, gird on the sword, and continue their 
march of trial and triumph. A new era is dawning; a new leader is furnished. Great as is 
the blank in the history of Israel when Moses dies, there shall be a leader divinely equipped, 
who shall accomplish the divinely appointed end. Not a priest, but a soldier, is to be the 
successor of Moses, and he is none other than the brave and noble Joshua, the son of Nun. 
He is a man of illustrious pedigree; it reaches back to Joseph. 5 Elishama, his grandfather, 
marched through the wilderness of Sinai at the head of his tribe; perhaps he had special 
charge of the embalmed body of Joseph. 6 It is a great gain to have noble ancestors; and in 
this honor the tribe of Ephraim fully shared. Moses acted personally in this matter and 
earnestly referred to the divine promise in the case. 7 Already Joshua has been honored as 
the heroic assistant of Moses; already as his bosom friend. 8 They furnished one of the best 

' Fraser, “ Books of the Bible,” p. 79, et seq. 2 Joshua i, 2. 3 Mark xiii, 34. 4 Joshua i, 2. 

8 1. Chronicles vii, 20-27 ; Numbers i, 10, ii, 18-24. “Parker, “ People’s Bible,” V, p. 45. 

’Exodus xiii, 19. “Exodus xxiv, 13, 14. 





CHARACTER OF JOSHUA — A TYPE OF CHRIST. 


377 


illustrations of an unselfish and beautiful friendship to he found in the early history of Israel. 
To Joshua will be intrusted the difficult, but successful, leadership of the chosen people. The 
history will not cease, nor will its continuity be broken, although a new leader is provided. 
This glorious promise was given to Joshua, “ As I was with Moses, so will I be with thee. I 
will not fail thee nor forsake thee.” 1 Was ever a nobler promise given to any man? The 
man to whom such a promise is given will be strong and do exploits for God and for man! 

Moses and Joshua differed greatly, and doubtless men of widely different characteristics 
were needed. For the work now awaiting Israel a soldier was required, and a soldier was 
furnished — the first soldier set apart for this purpose in the history of God’s people. Joshua 
has not been conspicuous as a teacher; he did not assume the functions of a prophet. Dean 
Stanley has pointed out that he even disliked the extension of prophecy and “ could not restrain 
his indignation when he heard that there were unauthorized propliesiers within the camp.” 2 
He was a simple-hearted man, a dauntless leader, and a heroic soldier. He first appears in 
sacred history when appointed to repel the attack of Amalek. 3 But for a long time he remained 
in obscurity. God’s great men must bide their time. The true Joshua lived in silence for 
thirty years in the obscure and dishonored village of Nazareth. Joshua stands on a sublimely 
historic hilltop midway between Moses and Samuel. His spear is ever associated with his name, 
and he appears constantly before us with it in his hand or hanging from his shoulder. He 
was exhorted by the Lord, in connection with the sublime promise of which we have spoken, 
to be “ very courageous 4 and his patient labors and his wonderful achievements show how 
fully he obeyed this exhortation. Never did he turn to the right hand or to the left, however 
difficult and dangerous his duties were. 

We see him moving grandly forward leading the hosts from Jordan to Jericho, 5 from 
Jericho to Ai, 6 from Ai to Gibeon, 7 from Gibeon to Beth-horon, 8 and on at last to Merom. 9 He 
was marked by that most uncommon sense which we call common sense. He was a Napoleon in 
his ability to make a forced march; a Grant in his patient heroism; a Lincoln in his love of 
liberty and justice; and a Gustavus Adolphus, a William the Silent, a Havelock, a Gordon, a 
“Stonewall” Jackson, and a General Howard in his consciousness of the divine presence and 
inspiration. Not to him, as to Moses, did the divine command come in the burning bush; but 
it came to him in the person, as we believe, of Jehovah-Jesus, appearing as Captain of the 
host of the Lord, with a drawn sword in diis hand. 10 The drawn sword symbolized his form of 
duty, and bravely did he do it until the kings of Canaan, the enemies of the Lord and of Israd, 
lay conquered at his feet. 11 If ever there was a name given to a man by divine prescience, it 
was the name Joshua. Originally the name was Hoshea, meaning “Salvation”; 12 later it was 
changed to Jelioshua, or simply Joshua, meaning “ God’s Salvation.” It finally, through the 
Greek, took the form of Jason, but more often the form of that name which is above every 
name, “ Jesus.” 13 

Most writers have seen a striking resemblance between the lives of Joshua and Jesus. 
This analogy is not fanciful; it demands our considerate attention and our appreciative recog¬ 
nition. In that early day the name of Joshua suggested the deliverance which Jesus was to 
secure for his people from their enemies, and especially from the great enemy of the human 
race. Joshua saved Israel from Canaanitish and other foes; Jesus was to “save his people 
from their sins.” 14 The history of Joshua also suggests the martial and soldier-like features 
under which Christ is so often represented as “The Captain of their Salvation.” 15 Joshua 
began his life by sharing the sufferings of his brethren in Egypt; so Jesus took upon himself 
the form of a servant and suffered with his brethren. The passage of Jordan under Joshua was 

1 Joshua i, 5. 2 Numbers xi, 28. 3 Exodus xvii, 10. 4 Joshua i, 7. 5 Joshua vi, 2. 6 Joshua viii, 1. 

7 Joshua ix, 17. 8 Joshua x, 10. 9 Joshua xi, 7. 10 Joshua v, 13. “Stanley, “Jewish Church,” I, p. 253. 

12 Numbers xiii, 16. 13 Stanley, “Jewish Church,” I, p. 254. 14 Matthew i, 21. 15 Hebrews ii, 10. 



378 


NOBILITY OF JOSHUA —HIS LAST WARNING. 


free from difficulty and danger; so Jesus robs the river of death of its terrors. Joshua took 
twelve stones from the bed of the Jordan as witnesses of the deliverance wrought by God; so 
Christ selected twelve living witnesses of his resurrection. Joshua also suggests Jesus as the 
Overcomer of all enemies, a character which is conspicuously illustrated in the writings of the 
Apostle John, both in his Gospel and in the Book of Revelation. 1 Joshua brought Israel into 
the land of promise; Jesus brings his people into the heavenly Canaan. When Joshua com¬ 
pleted his work he ascended the Mount of Ephraim and lived in quiet and security from his 
foes; so Jesus, having finished his final work, ascended to the right hand of God. 2 

Joshua was the son of Nun, and of the tribe of Ephraim. He grew up as a slave in the 
brickfields of Egypt. He learned to rule wisely in manhood, because he learned to obey 
promptly in boyhood. It is evident that he was born about the time Moses fled into Midian; he 
was, therefore, a man about forty to forty-four years old at the time of the Exodus from Egypt. 
Moses was skillful in knowing and using men, and he readily discovered the qualities in Joshua 
which would make him, for the time, his fitting colleague, and afterward his able successor. At 
the fight with Amalek at Rephidim, Moses chose Joshua to lead the hosts of Israel. 3 When 
Moses ascended Mount Sinai to receive the tables of the law, Joshua accompanied him for a part 
of the distance, 4 and was the first to meet him on his return. He was uncontaminated by the 
idolatry of the golden calf. He was also one of the twelve chiefs sent to explore Canaan, 5 and 
he was one of the two who had courage and knowledge sufficient to give a favorable report of 
what they saw. He and Caleb were the only ones of the twelve exploring princes who urged 
the people at once to enter the promised land. 6 At the close of the forty years of wandering, 
Joshua remained as one of the few survivors of the earlier day, and Moses, but a little time 
before his death, solemnly inaugurated him and invested him with authority of headship over 
the people. 7 He was thus chosen for the service which Moses forfeited at Meribali. 8 Later, God 
gave an additional charge to Joshua. 9 We shall see later in his history that his is one of the 
lives, so few in any history recorded with completeness, on which no stain ever rested. Had he 
lived in the Middle Ages, he would have been celebrated by chronicler and poet as a knight, 
warrior, and saint. He combined the gentleness of a pure and noble life with the whole-souled 
courage which comes from a high and unselfish motive. He stood near to God; he heard the 
word and saw the vision of the Almighty. His majestic presence inspired Israel with awe, 10 
while his mildness and gentleness in remonstrating with the erring showed the love of a father’s 
heart. He was permitted to gather the fruit of the seeds which Moses sowed. During his active 
life the Hebrews were preeminently the people of God; but dark shadows fell upon the close of 
his life, because of the worldly and idolatrous spirit of the people. He was probably about 
eiglity-four years of age at the time of the passage of the Jordan; and for the next twenty-six 
years he was actively engaged in his great work of conquering and dividing the land which God 
gave to him and his people. His unselfishness showed itself in his waiting until all others had 
received their share before he asked anything for himself, 11 and the portion which he received 
was small at best, 12 and was located in the rough mountain country which had been given to his 
own tribe of Ephraim. 13 In that portion of the land he received Timnath-Serah, 14 for which he 
had asked, and there he spent his remaining days. At the age of 110 his beautiful life ended 13 
in harmony with the spirit which had marked it from the beginning of his public career. At 
Shechem he summoned the tribes to a solemn assembly; he warned them against idols in the 
heart, and gave them a farewell charge to be ever faithful to God. 16 Joshua knew the fickleness, 
rebellion, and idolatry of his own nation, and so, almost with his last breath, he faithfully warned 

1 Revelation iii, 21. 2 Ephesians iv, 8, el al. 3 Exodus xvii, 9. 4 Exodus xxiv, 13. 5 Numbers xiii, 16. 

6 Numbers xiv, 6-9, xxxii, 11, 12. 7 Deuteronomy xxxiv, 9. 8 Numbers xx, 11-13 ; xxvii, 15-23. 

9 Joshua i, 1-9. 10 Joshua iv, 14. 11 Joshua xix, 49. 12 Joshua xix, 50. 13 Joshua xix, 50. 

14 Joshua xix, 50. 15 Judges ii, 8, 16 Joshua xxiv, 1. . 



TACT AND REWARD OF RA1IAB. 


379 


them to beware of the abominations of their heathen neighbors. Not so much as a warrior, but 
rather as a friend and father, does he address them. Standing on the brink of the grave, he 
exhorts and commands them to live in the fear of the Lord. Thus, in simplicity of heart, in 
loyalty to his people, and in consecration to his God, this aged servant passed to a better Canaan 
—even an heavenly. 

But we return to the order of the narrative. As soon as the mourning over the death of 
Moses was over, Joshua, now the leader of the people, made the necessary preparations for 
crossing the Jordan. He gave command that provisions for three days should be prepared; 
and he also reminded the tribes east of the Jordan of their promise to aid their brethren. 1 He 
also sent two spies to Jericho, as this was the first city which he intended to attack. 2 This city 
they reached in safety, and there they abode with a woman named Rahab, who lived on the 
city wall. 3 Their entrance, however, had been observed, and soon the king sent to Rahab, 
commanding her to give up her visitors as spies. But their hostess became their unexpected 
ally ; and she manifested aTemarkable degree of ingenuity in devising methods for their safety, 
and for throwing the king’s messengers off their track. She affirmed that her guests had 
already left her, but might be caught if their pursuers hastened at once for that purpose. But 
her guests were safely hidden on the flat roof of her house, and were covered by the flax which 
had been recently gathered and was left upon the roof to dry. 4 The king’s warriors hastily left 
the house and made for the passage of the Jordan with all the speed which they could com¬ 
mand, and the gates were soon shut behind them, as the time for closing them had come. Their 
hostess then went to the spies on the house-top, telling them that she had rescued them because 
she feared the Lord. Already the people of Jericho had heard much of Jehovah, of how the 
Red Sea became dry at his command, and of how the lands of Sihon and Og had fallen before 
the power of God’s people. She intimated that everyone trembled before them, as no one could 
withstand the j>ower of Jehovah, the God of Israel, and the God also of heaven and earth. 5 
She then besought the spies to spare her, saying, “ Swear unto me by the Lord, since I have 
shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father’s house, and give me a 
true token.” 6 The spies, grateful for the kindness which she had shown, and fully believing 
that they were acting in harmony with the will of God, took the oath with the condition that 
she should prove faithful to the end. They then arranged that when they took the city they 
would shelter her and all her relatives in her own house, and that the besiegers should know the 
bouse by the sign of a red cord. 7 The spies were then let down through the window over the 
city wall. For three days they hid among the mountains, 8 and then, having bravely swam 
across the Jordan, they reached the camp in safety, apparently on the fifth day, and they 
were able to report, saying, “ Jehovah has given us the land, for its inhabitants tremble for 
fear before us.” 9 

The pledge which the spies made to Raliab, Joshua and the tribes faithfully kept. We 
know that she was afterward married to Salmon, a prince of the tribe of Judah and son of 
Naason ; 10 she became the mother of Boaz, the grandfather of Jesse, the father of David. Thus 
Rahab was one of the ancestors of him who was David’s son and David’s Lord. Thus, also, 
she was one of the four women, all foreigners, who are named in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus 
— Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. These were not stainless names; and this fact has 
its purpose in connection with the work of Christ. The relatives of Rahab also shared in the 
blessings conferred upon her, lived permanently in Israel, and were placed on a footing of entire 
equality and of hearty friendship. 

There has been much discussion regarding the character of Rahab, and the moral quality 
of the act which she performed for the people of God. Several scholars of repute prefer the 

1 Joshua i, 11-15. Joshua ii, 1-3. 3 Joshua ii, 15. 4 Joshua ii, 6. 6 Joshua ii, 11. 8 Joshua ii, 12. 

7 Joshua ii, 18. 8 Joshua ii, 22. 9 Joshua ii, 24. 10 Matthew i, 5. 



880 


CHARACTER OF RAHAB REVIEWED. 


more modest rendering of the word usually translated “ harlot,” and make it mean simply a 
hostess; hut it is no doubt useless to attempt to explain Rahab’s position as simply that of a 
hostess. Eastern khans, strictly speaking, are not controlled by hosts, far less by hostesses; 
and the custom of the country would not permit these spies to lodge at the house of any 
reputable oriental woman. It is interesting to see how providence cooperated with various 
coincidences 1 in relation to the visit of the spies to the house of Raliab. Probably hers was the 
only house into which they could go without arousing the suspicion of the enemy. We cannot 
understand all of God’s purposes in using unworthy instruments for carrying out his divine 
designs. 2 The woman was there, and the help she could render was needed. Of that help the 
spies took advantage at this critical period in their journey, and in the history of a great and 
divine movement. God can use unworthy men and women to advance his divine purposes, and 
to achieve his determined results. We cannot trace the path of the Almighty when he is 
treading these devious and obscure ways. Who can say how much the character of the Son of 
Man was determined by these strains of Gentile, and, as we would say, of tainted blood ? Who 
can determine how much this fact had to do with the sympathy which he manifested for certain 
classes of women during his earthly career ? Who can tell what memories of his own strangely 
commingled national life filled his soul and moved his heart? Every man is his ancestors 
in remarkable ways; every man is his descendants in ways equally wonderful and mysterious. 
No one has yet fully understood the laws of heredity. 3 Jesus Christ was the human race; he 
was, in the profoundest sense, the Son of Man. All the nobility of man and all the tenderness 
of woman were wrapped up in and manifested by this unique Man. He knew humanity in all 
its temptations and achievements. Raliab was a student of God’s dealings with the nations. 
Perhaps she enjoyed special opportunities for acquiring knowledge of current events. Perhaps, 
also, she had her times of serious thoughtfulness over the possibilities of a nobler life. Even 
the most terribly lost have such times. No one, however, must suppose that the Word of God 
indorses the character of Raliab as a whole, or even the part which she performed in this 
strange transaction. She was guilty of falsehood and treason. Nowhere does the Bible indorse 
her treachery or falsehood; it narrates, but does not approve, her conduct. It never pro¬ 
nounced a eulogy on either her conduct or her character. She had remarkable faith and equal 
intelligence regarding God’s presence and purpose. She seemed, in this respect, to rise above 
herself, above the life she lived, and above the faith even of Israel. God is evermore selecting 
in strange ways those whom he divinely guides and heroically inspires for sublime faith and 
work. It was true in that early day, as often at a later time, that scarcely in Israel did he find 
so great faith and obedience. The Bible often approves of one quality in men and women, 
while its principles practically rebuke all their other characteristics. This statement finds 
illustration in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. Let it, then, be distinctly understood that 
God nowhere commends the falsehood of Raliab. The Bihle in this respect is absolutely 
clear of blame. 4 

When the soldiers of the king demanded the messengers from Raliab, their request was 
in harmony with eastern customs, which assumed that no man would enter a woman’s 
house without her knowledge and permission. As it was the time of the barley harvest, 
flax and barley being ripe at the same time in the Jordan valley, bundles of flax stalks 
were naturally on the roof of the house, undergoing the process of drying. The stalks of flax 
often grow to the height of three feet, and are as thick as a cane. But for the introduction 
of this woman into Israel, and for her relation to our Lord, probably no commentator would 
for a moment question the natural interpretation of the narrative regarding her character. 
She, however, became a public benefactor to the neople of God, and has honor in the history 


1 Parker, “ People’s Bible,” V, p. 82. 
3 Parker, “ People’s Bible,” V, p. 83. 


2 Blaikie, “ Book of Joshua,” p. 153, el seq. 

‘Parker, “ People’s Bible,” V, p. 84, et seq. 



SYMBOLISM OF THE SCARLET CORD. 


381 


of Israel, in the history of Christianity, and in the history even ot the human race. That 
scarlet cord hanging from the window marked her house, and is illustrative of the scarlet 
line which runs all through Revelation, marking the presence of Christ as the sacrifice for 
men, and suggesting the safety which comes to those who trust in the great truth thus 
suggestively symbolized. 




RUTH. 









CHAPTER ITT. 

THE JORDAN AND JERICHO. 

W E are now approaching a greater crisis in the history of Israel than any which she had 
experienced since she crossed the Red Sea. A new epoch is opening before her and us. 
Great results, for weal and for woe, depend upon the events of the next few days in the history 
of the people of God. The spies have returned, bringing the information that Jehovah has 
given Israel the land, and that the “inhabitants tremble for fear before us.” Between the 
people and the promised land lies the deep valley of the Jordan, and its gloriously historic and 
strangely mysterious river; and they must prepare to cross it and to possess the land. 

It was a time of deep thankfulness on the part of Joshua, and on the part of all the more 
thoughtful of the people. Between them and the land rolled the river Jordan, whose current 
was now swollen to an unusual degree. This river was formed by the junction of three moun¬ 
tain streams, themselves formed by numerous fountains and springs of Lebanon. An order was 
issued that the people should “ sanctify ” 1 themselves by legal purifications and by heart-exam¬ 
ination in prospect of the wonders soon to be performed by God. The cloudy pillar seems to 
have disappeared with the death of Moses; but the Sacred Ark was now in a special sense the 
symbol of God’s presence. It was near the Passover. The river was greatly swollen because 
of the melting of the snows on Hermon, and it here and there overflowed its banks. To ford 
it was absolutely impossible \ but it was not necessary. God was now to show Israel and the 
nations that he was still the leader of his people. The narrator describes the passage over the 
river with distinctness and beauty. It is a scene which is never forgotten by subsequent 
writers; it is a scene which has been taken up into the hymnology of the world, and into the 
touching allegories of Bunyan and other writers. On the bank of the swollen stream we see 
the priests with the Ark on their shoulders. At the appointed time they bore it forward until 
their feet touched the water of the rapid-flowing river. The Ark of God was not now occu¬ 
pying its secure central position, but was carried in the van. This movement was dangerous, 
though necessary to the fulfillment of the divine design. Joshua was apparently exposed to any 
sudden attack or secret ambush of the enemy; and had such an attack been made, the Sacred 
Ark might have been captured and the hopes of the people would have been disappointed; 
but the Ark was borne forward in safety to the bank of the river. The army followed at a 
distance of more than three-quarters of a mile. 2 The warriors of Reuben, Gad, and half 
Manasseh left their families and flocks behind and joined in the heroic and pious enterprise. 3 
The river, swollen by the early rains and the melting snows on Mount Lebanon, rolled its full 
volume at the feet of the priests as they stood with the Ark on their shoulders. The Ark was 
borne to the river; below it marched the army; the women and children being placed, accord¬ 
ing to the Jewish tradition, in the center for greater protection from the force of the current. 
Now occurred an amazing miracle. The feet of the priests touched the waters at the edge of 
the Jordan. Suddenly, as if the hand of God had been thrust into the midst of the stream, 
the full bed of the Jordan was dried up before their eyes. Far up the river, in Adam, the city 
which is beside Zaretan, as far as the parts of Kirjath-jearim 4 — that is to say, at a point thirty 
miles distant from the bank on which the priests stood — the waters were arrested, until they 
stood and rose up as if they had been congealed at the command of God. The waters below 

1 Josliua iii, 5. 2 Joshua iii, 4. ! Joshua iv, 12. 4 Joshua iii, 16. 

382 




DESCENT UPON THE VALLEY OF THE JORDAN 



































384 


THE PROMISED LAND ENTERED. 


flowed off into the Dead Sea, and the river bed, during all the intervening space, was left 
perfectly dry. Israel then passed over dry-footed. Motionless the priests stood in the middle 
of the channel until the host had passed over, the waters being held back until the bearers of 
the Ark had left the bed of the stream. The three transjordanic tribes, numbering 40,000 men, 
marched in front, and were thus the first to put foot on the shore. After all had passed over, 
the Jordan flowed on as before, and, as before in the month Abib (part of our April and May), 
overflowed its banks. This stupendous miracle gave Joshua additional authority over Israel, 
and Israel additional power over her foes. Two appropriate monuments, each built of twelve 
stones, in accordance with the number of the tribes of Israel, were raised to commemorate the 
wonderful event. One monument stood in the middle of the Jordan where the feet of the 
priests had stood during the crossing; 1 this was, to some degree, simply a tribal monument. 
The other was a national memorial, and was built on a larger scale. As the priests left the 
river bed twelve stones, which had been laid bare in the bed of the river, were selected by the 
twelve chiefs of the tribes. 3 These stones were placed at Gilgal, in the center of the first 
encampment of the Israelites on the plain of the Jordan, and became the place of the first 
Sanctuary in the promised land—the first place considered specially sacred in the Jordan 
valley, and the place where the Tabernacle remained until it was located at Shiloh. 3 For 
long years Gilgal gave evidence of the honor conferred upon it in connection with this 
wonderful occasion. 

The manna on which the tribes had fed during their desert journey ceased, as soon as the 
river was crossed. 4 God never needlessly multiplies miracles. It was best for the people now 
to eat of the last year’s corn and the other produce of the country; and of these sources of 
supply they partook with gratitude and joy. It is believed that the site thus chosen has 
been identified by the Palestine Survey, at Jiljulieh, which is but a slight change in the word 
Gilgal. The name is given to a spot three miles southeast of the supposed site of Jericho. 
Here, also, all who had not undergone circumcision during the wilderness journey were by that 
rite introduced into the commonwealth of Israel. 5 The neglect of that rite was regarded as 
a deep reproach, and that reproach was now to he removed. 6 The knives of flint used in the 
performance of the rite were long preserved and regarded as relics of a peculiarly sacred 
character. A name commemorating the event was given to the hill where it had taken place, 
this hill being called Gilgal, a word whose very meaning indicated that the reproach of Egypt 
was “ rolled away.” This rite was the token of their submission to God as his chosen people. 
Dean Stanley reminds us that a Jewish sect is still reported to exist at Bozra which claims 
to have separated itself from Israel at this time because they abhor, not only circumcision, but 
everything that would remind them of the rite, refusing even to cut with knives at their 
meals. The Passover was now celebrated for the first time in Canaan, 7 and the first since 
leaving Sinai — the cakes were not made of manna hut from the grain of Palestine, the bread 
being found in the houses of the people of the district. 8 

The Jordan has been passed, memorial caitns have been erected, the rite of circumcision 
has been observed, and the Passover has been kept; but the glorious history has only been 
begun. The people did not march out of Egypt simply to cross the Jordan ; they are to over¬ 
throw a city hoary with age, venerable in appearance, and strongly fortified by walls and 
soldiers. In divine things, as in many human affairs, one victory is but the prophecy of other 
victories ; each step taken implies and necessitates the taking of other steps. The first miracle 
is but the beginning of a series of miracles in the development of the divine purpose. The 
Jordan of death which God’s people shall cross is but the beginning of greater triumphs in the 
advancing eternal life in Christ. That river the great Priest of the everlasting Covenant will 

1 Joshua iv, 9. 2 Joshua iv, 20. 3 Joshua xviii, 1. 4 Joshua v, 12. 5 Joshua v, 2. 6 Joshua v, 9. 

7 Joshua v, 10. 8 Joshua v, 12. 




SOURCE OF THE JORDAN. 






























386 


IMPORTANCE OF JERICHO. 


enable us to pass over dry-shocl and we shall enter upon a still more glorious career of attain¬ 
ments. So with ancient Israel; in passing the Jordan that advance was but the beginning of 
terrible conflicts and glorious conquests. Gilgal became the frontier fortress. It formed the 
base of future operations, and was long the headquarters of the army and of the tribes. There 
the Tabernacle remained until it was removed to Shiloh. The people were now to enter upon 
a new career. 

Even before crossing the Jordan, the attention of Joshua was fixed on Jericho. It was the 
key of Palestine. It lay seven miles west of the Jordan, and commanded the entrance of the 
chief pass into the land of Canaan. Nature and art combined to make the city apparently 
impregnable. On the west side were lofty and apparently impassable mountains. In the city 
were springs of water, and not far distant were groves of palm trees. The great military 
problem confronting Joshua at the beginning of his career was the capture of this city. Its 
abundant water supply, and the fertility of the region, so greatly increased by the heat of a 
tropical region nearly seven hundred feet below the level of the sea, were additional induce¬ 
ments to the people to capture this city. They regarded it as accursed of God, and were ready 
to be the instruments of God in inflicting the divine vengeance upon the place. It was also a 
beautiful region. Luxuriant verdure, abundant moisture, and groves of palms gave it varied 
charms; and the vicinity was beautified by streamlets, by cultivation, and by variegated shrubs, 
so that it possessed attractions not often found in Palestine. While in the camp at Gilgal, 
the people must have gazed on the groves of majestic palms — groves said to have been three 
miles in breadth and eight in length. 1 Compared with the territory through which the people 
had passed, this was a sight to gratify the eye and to gladden the heart. The line of moun¬ 
tains near the city only increased the charm of this fruitful landscape by their prominence 
and ruggedness. Near the base of these mountains rose, in the midst of the abounding verdure, 
the temples and palaces of Jericho. To the minds of the wilderness wanderers this city was as 
beautiful as a dream. It was famous, also, for its wealth and luxury; but it was an object of 
hatred to Israel, because it was the center of idolatrous worship, and esj)ecially of worship 
associated with all the painful memories of Baal-peor. Here was the home of Ashtoreth, the 
consort of Baal. Indeed, some have interpreted the word Jericho to mean “City of the Moon,” 
and the moon was the well-known symbol of that depraved goddess. It should be said, how¬ 
ever, that others understand the word to mean “place of fragrance.” It was doubtless the 
abode of the most revolting rites of an abominable heathenism — a heathenism which Israel 
regarded as an utter abomination to Jehovah. The people must have regarded this city, 
notwithstanding its wealth and splendor, with abhorrence and loathing. Jericho was really 
the only important town in the Jordan valley. Its rich temple, its gold, silver, iron, brass, 
and Babylonian hangings, indicated its wealth. Above the highest trees rose its lofty walls 
and towers. It was known as “Jericho, the City of Palms.” 2 It was described as “high and 
fenced up to heaven.” 

All is now ready for the attack upon this famous city, and soon it is laid under siege. We 
feel that we are in an atmosphere charged with divine power. The great events which already 
have taken place, and those pressing now upon us, are under the guidance of the God of Israel, 
even as was the Exodus from Egypt. Great as are the sagacity of Joshua, the courage of the 
spies, and the faithfulness of Rahab, we cannot but feel that behind and above all these human 
instrumentalities is the hand of the Almighty. The storm is about to break upon Jericho, 
encircled with its amphitheater of hills. The dwellers in Jericho prudently await behind their 
walls the attacks of the heralded foe. No one of the citizens is allowed to go in or to come out. 
They are prepared to offer a desperate resistance; but to theii amazement no attempt is made to 
storm the walls, or to force the gates. They see simply a peaceful procession marching in 


Stanley, p. 260. 


-See descriptions by Milrnan, Geikie, and Stanley. 



JERICHO CAPTURED. 


387 


silence around the walls of the city. Their surprise must have given place to amusement, and 
finally to contempt. What could these fanatical people mean by such a procession ? It is true, 
and they learned it with wonder, that these invaders had crossed the swollen river Jordan, and 
they doubtless regarded this achievement as a miracle strangely wrought; hut the taking of 
Jericho would be quite another matter. They considered themselves entirely safe behind their 
strong walls, with their full supply of provisions, and with their trained soldiers ; they believed 
that they were thus able to defy the assaults of almost any foe. If amused or terror-stricken 
at the first approach of the conquerors of Gilead and Bashan, they would now he only amused 
and would soon cease to he at all alarmed as, day by day, they watched the strange circuits 
made in total silence. They observe the priests bearing the Ark on their shoulders, while they 
hear the sound of trumpets. We do not know with certainty whether these trumpets were 
rams’ horns or only of that shape. The number seven, however, impresses us at once as we 
read this narrative. There are seven priests; there are seven trumpets, and they go before the 
Ark for seven days, and on the seventh day they go around the city seven times. 1 Now the 
panic of the people gives place to confidence. Nothing is farther from their minds than 
that the walls are to give way, and that their enemies are to enter the city in triumph. For 
six successive days the mysterious marching goes on, and no voice is heard from the vast 
army, no sound hut the shrill notes of the trumpets. On the last day six rounds are made; 
the seventh is begun, and it is now proceeding; they have neared the close of the last round 
and the whole army suddenly sends up a tremendous shout. Immediately the walls of the city 
fall flat, and the triumphant invaders, flushed with victory and deeply conscious of the divine 
presence and power, rush over the walls and through the streets among the defenseless and 
flying people. Some have supposed that natural agencies in the form of earthquakes or 
volcanic convulsions contributed to the falling of the walls. 2 We know that such convulsions 
were not uncommon in the Jordan valley. But the marvel is that the convulsions should 
occur at the right moment in the attack upon the city. Even though it should he proved that 
natural agencies were employed, the supernatural element is by no means thus eliminated. If 
ever there was a time when miracles were appropriate in the history of God’s people, it was 
then. These miracles really form a part of the series which began with the plagues of Egypt, 
was continued in the crossing of the Red Sea, in the guidance of the cloud by day and the 
pillar of fire by night, and in the daily supply of manna. It was the time of the establishment 
of a new epoch in the kingdom of God, and it was fitting that he should surround it with 
glorious evidences of his presence and power. God, in accomplishing his great purposes, may 
use any number of secondary causes; hut his presence is clearly seen in the use of these causes 
at the right time and for the accomplishment of the determined end. God’s people in later 
days, through inspired psalmists, sang of the glory of this victory, giving all the praise to God, 
whose right hand and whose holy arm had gotten him and them the victory. Joshua himself 
was profoundly impressed with the idea that Jehovah was leading his people. Before the city 
was attacked, the illustrious Being who appeared to him with a drawn sword in his hand 
answered Joshua’s challenge with the assurance that he was the Captain of the Lord’s host, 3 
and Joshua reverently threw himself at his feet awaiting his commands and conscious of the 
divine Presence. 

A terrible fate awaited the inhabitants of Jericho; fearful sternness was to be manifested 
toward this doomed people. This city had been laid under the ban; it was devoted wholly to 
the Lord. Everything in it, therefore, was slaughtered — not merely human beings, hut also 
the beasts of burden. Not a single person, save Rahab and her relatives, was spared. The 
precious metals were consecrated to the Lord, but all else, including cattle, houses, furniture, 
everything was consumed in one fearful sacrifice. Joshua further pronounced a terrible curse 

2 See King, in his “ Morsels of Criticism,” III, 287, 305, mentioned by Stanley. 


‘Joshua vi, 4. 


3 Joshua v, 14. 



388 


THE SUV OF AC HAN. 


over this scene of desolation; and a malediction was uttered, also, upon the head of him who 
should rebuild this city, now reduced to utter desolation. 1 Israel was distinctly commanded to 
smite and utterly destroy the Canaanite race, to show no mercy, and to save alive nothing that 
breathed. Perhaps this command was not literally obeyed, in all cases; for we know that, in 
regions named as entirely depopulated, strong Canaanite towns are later found. But, with 
whatever modifications we may understand this command, we know that the extermination was 
extensive, and that the penalty inflicted was terrible. 

The fall of Jericho was of vast importance to the subsequent victories of the invaders; it 
opened to them the passes into the neighboring hills. Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, 
which is beside Bethaven, commanding them to go up and view the country. We do not know 
exactly where Ai was situated, hut the command given by Joshua indicates that it was near the 
head of the ravine running up from the Jordan valley. The inhabitants of Ai were strongly 
fortified, and they drove the invaders backward, smiting them as they went down the declivity. 2 
This defeat greatly startled Joshua and the children of Israel. The victory over Jericho had 
been so signal, that it was difficult to understand how an insignificant town like Ai should 
defeat the victorious invaders, and this surprising check of the"two or three thousand men sent 
to take Ai led to serious inquiry. They were repulsed with the loss of thirty-six of their 
number; should such defeats be multiplied the terror of the people would at once pass away, 
and Israel would be at a great disadvantage. Joshua and the elders of the people rent their 
clothes, put dust on their heads and cast themselves in wonder, inquiry, and penitence before the 
Ark the whole day; 3 and all the people were on the point of being panic-stricken. But careful 
inquiry revealed the cause of their defeat. The spoils of Jericho had been devoted to destruc¬ 
tion ; and the divine command had been disobeyed by one man. This man was Achan, and he 
was of the tribe of Judah. He had taken some gold and silver, and a Babylonian mantle, 
literally “ a mantle of Shinar,” of beautiful appearance, and of great value. 4 His offense was 
twofold: it was a breach of military discipline, and also an act of religious disobedience. 
Joshua fully realized that he could not allow his soldiers to enrich themselves with the plunder 
of Jericho. Should he yield at this point, all discipline would soon be destroyed, and the holy 
enthusiasm and lofty patriotism of the people would be wanting. Achan could not induce 
himself to burn this robe or to throw the gold and silver into the treasury of the Lord. Foolish 
man! Wicked man ! Hid he think that Jehovah did not see his act nor know his heart? As 
a consequence of his guilt, Israel was defeated. No man sins alone. One man’s act may 
involve his family, his city, his nation in the consequences of his evil conduct. By a most 
skillful process of elimination Achan was selected by lot out of all the people as the guilty man. 
The lot fell on the tribe of Judah, then on the family of the Zarhites, then on the household of 
Zabdi, and then of that household on Achan, the son of Carmi. 5 His guilt was confessed, and 
the righteous wrath of Jehovah was inflicted. Achan, his sons, daughters, oxen, sheep, asses, 
tents, and all his possessions, were brought into a neighboring valley where the terrible punish¬ 
ment was inflicted upon him and them. 6 He was crushed under a shower of stones and his body 
was burned with the furniture, the robes, and the beasts which he had owned, and then a huge 
cairn was raised over the spot where God’s justice had been so signally vindicated. The place 
was called “the Valley of Achor,” “the Valley of Troubling.” 7 It is almost certain that 
Achan’s family shared in his guilt, and so shared in his punishment. By a natural law, whose 
operations are seen to this day, a man’s family shares in his social honors, political preferments, 
and intellectual achievements; and by the same law his family must suffer, to this hour, in his 
wrong-doing of whatever kind. This law is as universal as gravitation ; it is ancient as man ; 
it is eternal as God. 


1 Joshua vi, 26. 

6 Joshua vii, 24. 


2 Joshua vii, 6. 

7 Joshua vii, 26. 


3 Joshua vii, 6. 


* Joshua vii, 21. 


“Joshua vii, 16-18. 



THE GATHERING AT SHE CHE M. 


389 


Tlie divine punishment having been thus inflicted upon Aclian, Joshua was assured of the 
divine presence, 1 should he make a fresh attack upon Ai. He, therefore, placed by night 5,000 
men in ambush far up the ravine between Ai and Bethel, and thus showed that now he had 
formed a better estimate of his enemy’s strength than on the former occasion. And in another 
of the deep gorges, which abound in the district, he concealed 30,000 men, and approached the 
city. The men of Ai, emboldened by their former success, came out to meet them; then the 
Israelites, pretending to be panic-stricken, fled and the men of Ai pursued. The hidden troops, 
seeing their opportunity, dashed into the city, the gates being left open and undefended, and 
set it on fire. This having been done, Joshua’s men came out at the front gate to attack the 
garrison as it rushed back, and Joshua, facing about, also attacked them. The pretended 
retreat became a deadly attack both in front and rear, and the garrison was slain to the last 
man, 12,000 warriors of Canaan having fallen, and of Ai nothing remained but blackened 
stones. 3 The king alone was taken alive, the people having been exterminated, and before 
night he was hanged on one of the trees near the town. A heap of stones marked the spot 
where the king’s body was cast, after hanging for a day upon a cross. The Israelites in this 
case were permitted to retain the spoil and cattle. Soon Bethel, also, two miles distant, fell into 
their hands. 

The time was now ripe for an assembly of the people, and for a renewal of their vows of 
fealty to God. God had given command to Moses that the tribes should assemble at Shechem. 3 
This place was in the center of the land, and was already sacred in the associations of the people. 
There they were to hear once more their obligations to God and their duty to one another. 
At Shechem, Abraham and Jacob had pitched their tents, and there Jacob had purchased the 
field in which the bones of Joseph were to be placed, according to the command received by 
their forefathers hundreds of years before. 4 We, therefore, see the nation, including women 
and children, and even the representatives of other races, going on the pilgrimage from the 
banks of Jordan at Gilgal to the space between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. There, also, 
was the well Jacob had dug, and the oak beneath which he had buried the idolatrous images 
and other valuables belonging to his family. 5 Attention has often been called to the fact that 
this is, perhaps, the most beautiful spot in all Palestine. The valley lies north and south, with 
the width of from one-quarter to one-half a mile; it is between the twin mountains Ebal and 
Gerizim, whose summits are two miles apart, although their bases are so near. This valley is 
one of nature’s own great and glorious cathedrals. It was a fit place, alike because of its 
intrinsic beauty and its historical associations, for a great assembly of the chosen people. No 
fewer, it is said, than eighty springs supply the rivulets which pour down the slopes, clothing 
the glen with a garment of greenness and beauty. Here are gardens musical with many birds. 
Here are the fig, the walnut, the orange, the lemon, the pomegranate, and many other shrubs, 
while vines and plums fill the scene with rich foliage and luxuriant fruit. Here is Gerizim, 
rising a thousand feet above the valley “ in a huge dome of chalk,” whose base is hollowed 
out into many caves. Dark blue limestone ridges rise with various levels to the summit. On 
the north stands Ebal, rising in a gentler slope of steel-blue rocks, with cliffs 200 feet higher 
than those of Gerizim. On the north are many springs. Flowers of many colors and varieties 
spring up amid the luxuriant grass. The atmosphere is filled with particles of vapor rising 
from the numerous springs, making the air soft, hazy, and beautiful to an unusual degree. 
This is really the paradise of Palestine. This valley is a dream of beauty as compared with 
most other parts of the land. Here, in later times, came one greater than Joshua. It was at 
Nablus, the modern representative of Shechem, that Jesus sat by the well at the noonday hour 
and spoke of the water of life to the woman of Samaria. 


1 Joshua viii, 1. 2 Joshua viii, 25. :i Deuteronomy xi, 29. 

4 See Geikie’s fine description, “Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 410. 


5 Genesis xxxv, 4. 




390 


RENEWAL OF CONSECRATION. 


A sublime sight greets us as we gaze back upon the great assembly gathered under the 
direction of Joshua. He selected huge stones, covered them with a coating of plaster, inscribed 
on them an abstract of the law, and then placed them on Mount Ebal. Here, also, an altar of 
unhewn stones was raised, which was consecrated by burnt sacrifices and peace offerings. The 
descendants of Jacob, by his lawful wives, took their place on Mount Ebal; his descendants 
from the handmaids of Leah and Rachel, with Reuben, stood on the slopes of Mount Gerizim. 
Six tribes were on one height; six on the other. It is common to represent Ebal as a barren, 
stony, and desolate crag, and Gerizim as a lovely, fertile mountain with luxuriant verdure, 
abundant streams, and shady groves. If this difference between the mountains was real, Ebal 
would tell how God would smite the disobedient, and Gerizim how he would bless the obedient 
with abundance and happiness. The priests with the Ark occupied the valley between the two 
hills, and about them were the elders, officers, and judges of the nation. The great host are 
now assembled and are awaiting a public proclamation. The silence is broken as the Law given 
by Moses is read aloud to the vast multitudes. The voice of the reader ceases, and the tribes on 
Mount Ebal, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali, respond to the readings of the 
curses on disobedience, with a loud “ Amen; ” those on Mount Gerizim, Simeon, Levi, Judah, 
Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin, to the recital of the blessings for obedience, respond with a 
loud “Amen.” This was a scene whose impression was as lasting as it was profound and 
solemn. 1 Tests in modern times have been frequently made at this place which have clearly 
shown that the voice of a reciter can still be heard by many thousands gathered in this valley 
and on the slopes of the enclosing hills. Indeed, some tests have proved that speech a little 
louder than ordinary conversation can be heard perfectly by persons stationed on opposite sides 
of the valley. It is thus easy to see with what perfect ease the commandments could have been 
recited and heard. Dr. Geikie calls attention to the fact that such a scene enacted about 1,200 
years before the first Punic War, and 1,000 years before Socrates, is, indeed, unique in the 
history of the world. No other nation ever pledged itself in this solemn way to a religious 
life so high and holy. The curses as well as the blessings are peculiar to Israel; they include 
especially such sins as idolatry, disobedience to parents, unkindness to the blind, to strangers, 
widows, and orphans, and the removal of the land-mark of a neighbor. The laws even of 
to-day, in the most enlightened nations of the earth, have not reached so unselfish, so lofty, and 
so noble a standard. The inscriptions on plaster, because of the dryness of the climate, were as 
lasting as they would be in some countries if carved in granite. Dr. Thomson tells us that 
inscriptions on the rocks at Sinai, though only mere scratches, are perfectly distinct, after the 
lapse of thousands of years; and in Egypt and Palestine inscriptions and paintings on plaster 
are as distinct as when made thousands of years ago. 

This form of consecration having taken place, Jehovah having thus been recognized by all 
the people, and having taken Palestine in his name, the people returned, doubtless with a deep 
sense of the solemnity of the occasion, to Gilgal, which was still the headquarters of the tribes. 
As we shall see, the peace now enjoyed was to be rudely disturbed; and fierce battles were yet 
to be fought, and great victories were yet to be won. 


Dean Milman, “ History of the Jews,” I, p. 255. 



CHAPTER TV. 

STANDING STILL OF SUN AND MOON. 


rPHE success of Israel at Jericlio, Ai, and elsewhere, caused a general panic among the inliab- 
J- itants of Palestine; they were ready to abandon all their possessions in order to escape 
the power of the advancing Hebrews. Indeed, it seems evident that a considerable proportion 
of the population of Central Palestine fled before they were attacked. The subdivision of the 
people into small communities made them incapable of united action, and the lack of organized 
troops caused general demoralization. The way was now opened for great triumphs against the 
people of the land. The great body of the Hebrews still remained encamped at Gilgal. Soon 
a company of travel-stained men with moldy provisions, rent wine-skins, and worn shoes, 
presented themselves as if they had come from a distant country. 1 They declared that the 
fame of the Hebrew conquests had reached their remote land, and that they had come to offer 
their submission. The Israelites entered into a treaty without due inquiry, and they soon 
found that they had been imposed upon by the inhabitants of Gibeon, a Canaanitish city, 
which lay at no great distance from the base of Betli-horon, and immediately opposite the pass 
of Ai. Naturally this city would soon have fallen in any case into the hands of the Israelites. 
The device of the Gibeonites was most quaint, simple, and, withal, strategic. They pretended 
that they had not heard of the victories of Israel in the Wilderness and in Palestine, but 
simply of the great conquests made long ago over the Egyptians, 2 and east of the Jordan. The 
Israelites were not without their suspicions, but finally they made a treaty with them, and, 
although it was made under false representations, it was held sacred by Joshua and his people. 3 
The lives of the Gibeonites were spared, but they were doomed to a kind of slavery to the 
officiating priesthood, and in that condition their descendants were found long afterward. 
David was loyal to the vow which Joshua made to the Gibeonites, and this adherence to 
plighted faith is worthy of all praise in the careers of both Joshua and David. Dean Stanley 
calls attention to it in contrast with the example of so-called Christians, who have frequently 
refused to keep faith with those they called heretics and infidels. He cites the case of Cardinal 
Julian Caesarini, who, in an elaborate argument, urged Ladislaus of Hungary, when tidings had 
arrived of unexpected help for the Christian host, to break the solemn compact he had made 
with Amurath II., but, as the result proved, to the king’s undoing; for Ladislaus, acting upon 
the cardinal’s advice, only hurried his army to destruction. Joshua might have found an 
excuse for breaking faith with these Gibeonite deceivers; but although the congregation mur¬ 
mured against the princes, the latter said, “ We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of 
Israel: now, therefore, we may not touch them.” 4 And their lives were spared, although, as 
we have seen, they were, with their own consent, subjected to tributary service. 5 This incident 
has given a name to one of the popular novels of Walter Besant, whose writings have done so 
much to ameliorate the condition of the poor of London, of England, and of America. 

The capitulation of Gibeon brought a crisis on the Amorite kings. A league was formed, 
including five princes of the Amoritish race headed by Adoni-zedek. The purpose of this 
league was twofold; it was to revenge the defection of Gibeon and to arrest, if possible, the 
further progress of these triumphant invaders. The five kings, or princes, united in the league 

1 Joshua ix, 3, et se<j. 2 Joshua ix, 9. • Joshua ix, 15,16. 1 Joshua ix, 19. 1 Joshua ix, 23. 

391 



392 


SOUTHERN CANAAN SUBDUED. 


were: The king of Jehus, the king of Hebron, of Jarmuth, of Lachish, and Eglon. * 1 These 
banded together, hastened into the hill country and invested Gibeon. The elders sent hastily to 
Joshua for help. 2 Encouraged by Jehovah, he responded to their call for assistance and sud¬ 
denly broke up his camp, made a rapid night march, at the head of a large force of picked men, 
and before sunrise reached the foot of the hill on which Gibeon stands. 3 The sight of Joshua 
and his men struck terror into the foe. Uttering their terrible war cry, they fell on the 
Canaanites, utterly defeating them, and pursuing them with great slaughter. Much depended 
on the suddenness of Joshua’s blow. On a former occasion it took three days to go from Gilgal 
to Gibeon ; now, by a forced march, he made the journey in a night. It was all-important that 
he should break in pieces this confederation even before it was fully formed. This march and 
victory give Joshua a high place as a military leader. Jehovah himself threw Israel’s enemies 
into confusion and defeat. They fled in frantic haste toward Beth-horon. A tremendous hail¬ 
storm increased the panic and added greatly to the numbers of the slain. 4 Jehovah is repre¬ 
sented as discomfiting them and hurling the huge hailstones upon them as they fled. It is said 
that more died from the hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. 3 
It was on this occasion that the memorable event, known as the standing still of the sun and 
moon in their respective courses at the prayer of Joshua, took place. Never before nor since was 
there a day, according to popular belief, when Jehovah had so listened to the voice of a man, 
and Jehovah had so fought for Israel. This w T as one of the great battles of history; it largely 
determined the fortunes of the world and the Church. The five kings finally escaped from 
their pursuers and hid in a cave near Makkedah; 6 but they were discovered and placed under 
guard, and, after the pursuit was over and the remnant of their scattered forces had escaped to 
their own cities, the doom of these kings was pronounced — a fate sufficiently horrible to fill 
the mind with sadness even to this hour. Apparently they had not raised a hand against the 
Israelites, but they were dragged out of their place of concealment and humiliated by having 
five of the Israelite chieftains place their feet upon the necks of these kings, in token of the 
complete triumph of the one and the absolute overthrow of the other. 7 They were then put 
to death, and for the rest of the day the five bodies were hung upon five trees; 8 when they 
were finally thrown into the cave which they had chosen as a place of refuge, and a heap of 
stones was raised at the cave’s mouth to preserve the memory of their destruction. 9 

No one could now stand before Joshua. Makkedah was taken, and its inhabitants per¬ 
ished. The same lot befell many in southern Canaan. Indeed, the slaughter was complete, the 
victory was almost unlimited. City after city was reduced, and tribe after tribe was destroyed. 
Joshua finally returned to Gilgal, having subdued the south as far as Gaza, 10 with the exception 
of some very strong fortresses. 

Joshua now turned his attention to the invasion of northern Canaan. The princes of the 
north, like those of the south, united their forces and strove to expel the Israelites. They 
organized a powerful confederacy and assembled their countless hosts near the waters of 
Merom. 11 They derived great strength from the number and character of their war chariots. 
In the central plains and valleys of Palestine cavalry and chariots could engage in battle with 
greater effect than in the more mountainous districts in the south. Joshua, however, with the 
rapidity and vigor of a Cromwell, fell upon them and in a single battle decided the fate of that 
portion of the land. He burned their chariots and liam-strung their horses. 12 Hazor was the 
headquarters of the confederacy, and was the first place to fall before the power of Joshua, and 
its inhabitants were put to death ; with the exception of the cities situated on the hills, all the 
other cities were burned. This war is spoken of as lasting from five to seven years, and during 

1 Joshua x, 3, et seq. 2 Joshua x, 6. 3 Joshua x, 8-10. * Joshua x, 10. 6 Joshua x, 11. 6 Joshua x, 16. 

1 Joshuax, 24. 8 Joshua x,26, 27. 9 “The Bible for Learners,” by Drs. Oort, Hooykaas, and Kuenen. 

10 Joshua x, 40, 41. 11 Joshua xi, 5. 12 Joshua xi, 6-9. 




JOvSHUA COMMANDING THE SUN TO STAND STILL 





















394 


THE SUN AND MOON AT GIBE ON. 


this period seven nations — the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Hivites, Perizzites, 
the Girgashites, and the Jebusites — were overthrown, though not extirpated, and thirty-one 
kings were defeated . 1 We are not surprised to know that the Israelites finally grew weary of 
the war and longed to enjoy the comforts of peace. The tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half 
Manasseh were dismissed, at their urgent request, to their families and possessions on the east of 
the Jordan. But, although Israel’s foes were defeated, they were not destroyed; their conquest 
was incomplete. Many of them still remained within the territory and were ready on every 
occasion to harass their conquerors, and were constantly leading the Israelites into the barbarous 
practices and licentious rites of their degrading idolatries. 

Two questions are now to be answered: What can be said in explanation of the apparent 
arresting of the sun and moon in their respective courses? What is the justification of the 
policy of extermination, commanded by Jehovah and executed by Joshua? 

What is the significance of Joshua’s command to the sun and moon to stand still in their 
respective courses? This is a vexed and a vexing question. Jewish and Christian commen¬ 
tators have found this to be one of the most perplexing passages in the Bible. Was it a 
stupendous miracle, or can it be otherwise explained in harmony with the language of the 
narrative ? That God could perform a miracle, however great, we do not for a moment doubt; 
we place no limit whatever to his power. It is easy for God to introduce into the boundless 
ranges of creation laws with which we are not familiar, and whose introduction seems to us a 
miracle of the most stupendous kind. We do not hesitate to say that God could make the 
clock of the universe stop, without jarring the mechanism, by introducing laws now unknown 
to us. He certainly could produce an apparent stoppage of the machinery in entire harmony 
with recognized law. This he might do through the laws of refraction, as many have already 
supposed, or in some other way. We know that by various processes we get the after-glow of 
sunset in the diverse forms familiar to travelers on lofty mountains and in high latitudes; and 
this might be done without resorting to the violent methods which some have adopted in 
explanation of this narrative. But is it necessary to introduce even this modified view of the 
miracle supposed to have been wrought? We have no hesitancy in accepting a miracle which 
has been wrought by God; but we are unwilling to allow commentators to introduce their 
imaginary miracles into the sacred narrative. God, for wise purposes, has seen fit to introduce 
miracles into both the Old and the New Testament; but he has apparently reduced them to 
a minimum. Was there, in the ordinary sense of the word, any miracle here? Many able 
writers, whom no one would suspect of being opposed to revealed religion, doubt not only the 
extent but even the existence of a miracle in this case. They do not suppose that there was 
even a preternatural refraction of the sun’s rays after it had really gone below the horizon. 
They regard the description as that of a highly wrought poetical passage taken from the Book 
of Jasher. Let us look carefully at the evidence in favor of this opinion. 

The Book of Jasher, or “ the Upright,” appears to be a collection of eulogistic odes in 
praise of national heroes. Some, indeed, have supposed that it refers to some book or books of 
the Bible itself. It is mentioned 2 when the reference is to teaching the use of the bow. It has 
been suggested, as an explanation, that Joshua besought God that the black clouds of the storm 
driving up from the sea should not blot out the sun, and thus bring on night before his victory 
was complete . 3 When, according to this explanation, the sun shone out again from the tempest, 
and the moon stood clear in the sky, his prayer was supposed to be answered. Maimonides, 
whom Hengstenberg and many other Christian commentators follow, regarded it as simply a 
poetic way of saying that the day was long enough for the Israelites to win the victory and to 
slaughter their foes. The early rabbis were almost unanimous in believing that the sun literally 
stood still; but like the Christian fathers they differed among themselves as to the length 


1 Joshua xii, 24. 


2 II. Samuel i, 18. 


3 Rev. Samuel Cox. 



THE INVOCATION OF JOSHUA. 


395 


of time that it remained above the horizon . 1 Some said that it so remained twenty-four hours, 
and after its setting that the moon still remained stationary. Some supposed it remained forty- 
eight hours, others thirty-six hours, and some twenty-eight hours. Some commentators favor 
what they call a “subjective” prolongation of the day, believing that the day was simply 
supposed by the Israelites to have been lengthened, they being too busily engaged to note the 
time. Still others suppose that the lightning which accompanied the hailstorm was prolonged 
into the night, giving the night the appearance of day; and that the hailstorm was caused by 
the standing still of the sun. These latter suppositions are among the curiosities of Biblical 
interpretation . 2 Which, then, of these views are the more probable ? As already implied, we 
distinctly dismiss, in our interpretation, all ideas of the impossibility of such a miracle. God 
holds the waters in the hollow of his hand ; he metes out the heavens with a span . 3 He could 
certainly arrest the progress of a great universe, though it were ten thousand times greater than 
it is. Man can stop, in harmony with its own laws, a machine vastly greater than himself. 
Cannot the Creator stop, by the introduction of higher laws, the machine which he has set in 
motion ? 4 It is simply a question as to whether or not he did interpose his power and perform 
a miracle in this case; and it may be a fair question as to whether so stupendous a miracle were 
necessary or were likely to be performed by God who is always economical in his adaptation of 
means to ends. The success of the Israelites was so great, and the destruction of their enemies 
so immense, that it may well have been their belief that the day was lengthened miraculously 
for their advantage. It can readily be seen that those who believe in a literal miracle have 
some reason for that belief, because such a miracle would give a deathblow to the prevailing 
superstition of the country connected with the worship of the sun and moon. There is some¬ 
thing wonderfully sublime in supposing that the deities of the conquered people were thus 
arrested in their progress, and made witnesses of the discomfiture and overthrow of their 
worshipers. But we are not compelled to resort to any such interpretation. We need not 
regard Joshua’s prayer as more literal than the apostrophe of Isaiah, “ O that thou wouldst rend 
the heavens and come down, that the mountains would flow down at thy presence .” 5 It is, 
perhaps, not to be regarded as more literal than the statement of Deborah and Barak that, “the 
stars in their courses fought against Sisera ”; 6 not more literal than the words, “the hills 
melted like wax at the presence of the Lord ”; 7 “ the mountains skipped like rams ,” 8 and “All 
the trees of the field shall clap their hands .” 9 Joshua’s words remind us of Wellington’s at 
Waterloo, “ Oh, that Bliicher or night would come! ” There is in the “ Iliad ” a prayer by 
Agamemnon, as quoted by Geikie, not unlike the prayer of Joshua as here recorded: 

Jove greatest, Jove most glorious, sky-dweller, cloud bedight, 

Let not the sun nor darkness fall and wrap the world in night, 

Till Priam’s stately palace I cast in ruin low.” 

Then, again, the words of the original have been strangely misunderstood. Literally rendered, 
they give an idea differing from that usually supposed to be taught: “ Then spake Joshua to 
Jehovah, in the day when Jehovah gave the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he 
said before the eyes of Israel, Sun, in Gibeon, be still! and moon in the vale of Ajalon. 
And the sun was still, and the moon stood till a nation was avenged of its enemies. Is not 
this written in the Book of the Upright? And the sun stood in the midst of heaven, and 
did not haste to go down, as a perfect day. And there was not a day like that before or 
after it, for Jehovah to hearken to the voice of a man, for Jehovah fought for Israel.” 10 The 
meaning of the author, it is clear, is involved in some obscurity; but it is quite certain that 

1 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary,” p. 20. 

2 Michaelis and Konig, cited by Keil and quoted in Introduction to “ Pulpit Commentary.” 3 Isaiah xl, 12. 

* See Keil and Delitzsch “ Commentary on Joshua and Judah,” p. 112. 5 Isaiah lxiv, 1. 6 Judges v, 20. 

7 Psalm xcvii, 5. 8 Psalm cxiv, 4. 9 Isaiah lv, 12. 10 Translation in Introduction to “ Pulpit Commentary.” 



A SUPPOSED MIRACLE EXPLAINED. 


396 


it is not positively affirmed that the sun remained in the heavens a day, or even an hour, 
longer than its usual time. What is stated is that Joshua, in impassioned and poetic words, 
commanded that the sun and the moon should not set until his work was completed, and that 
this result was secured. The sun and moon were witnesses of his great deeds. They held 
their courses until his triumph was complete. These words are clearly seen to be poetic 
expressions. God was with Israel, and they won a glorious victory over their foes. Great 
states were handed against Israel, with all the appliances of warfare, and yet they were 
defeated in a single day with tremendous slaughter. It was eminently fitting that Israel 
should embody such a glorious victory in their national songs, and relate how the sun did not 
set until the triumph was won, and how the moon continued her light until the defeated 
remnants of the mighty army were driven from the fields . 1 It would be strange, if this were a 
miracle, that it should not he mentioned in many other parts of Scripture among the great 
things that God did for Israel. No allusion to this event is found except in one obscure 
passage . 2 The omission of such an allusion seems decisive as to the view which inspired 
writers took of this passage. The importance of the passage seems to have been greatly exag¬ 
gerated both by the friends and foes of revealed religion. Josephus makes but slight allusion 
to this supposed miracle, saying only “ that the day was increased, lest the night should check 
the zeal of the Hebrews”; and the Samaritan Book of Joshua simply says that “the day was 
prolonged at his prayer.” The traditional interpretation of this distinctly poetic passage 
invested it with alarming importance when the Copernican system was set forth by Galileo . 3 
Around this miracle fierce ecclesiastical battles have been fought—battles almost as important 
as that fought by Joshua himself. The Vatican has had its share in these battles, and has 
had to confess its repeated mistakes. We may fearlessly affirm that there can be no collision 
between science and Scripture when both are rightly interpreted. The explanation of Kepler, 
quoted by Dean Stanley, deeply interests all students of the passage . 4 “ They will not under¬ 
stand that the only thing which Joshua prayed for, was that the mountains might not intercept 
the sun from him. Besides, it had been very unreasonable at that time to think of astronomy, 
or of the errors of sight; for if anyone had told him that the sun could not really move on the 
valley of Ajalon, but only in relation to sense, would not Joshua have answered that his desire 
was that the day might be prolonged, so it were by any means whatsoever ? ” It is time that 
the great fabric of argument that has gathered around this passage should fall to the ground. 
It has been somewhat mistranslated; it is possibly an interpolation; it is at least a quotation. 
In no case ought it longer to trouble devout students of the Word of God. 

The progress of physical science in our day has entirely changed the earlier relation of 
miracles to divine revelation. They are not now considered to be of special evidential value. 
They were once believed to contribute greatly to the establishment of a divine revelation, and 
to the support of the Christian religion; but now many affirm that they are objections to faith 
in the Bible and obstacles to the progress of Christianity . 5 The universality and invariability 
of physical laws, which have been emphasized in recent times, make any departure from the 
observed course of nature somewhat startling. What once were considered wonderful portents 
are now seen, in many cases, to be but the natural result of higher laws, of whose existence, 
until lately, we had no knowledge. There are those who would put the miraculous events of 
the Bible into the same category with the prodigies of heathen fables, or with the apparitions of 
Lourdes, Knock, and Ste. Anne de Beaupre. We may well believe that miracles are necessary 
to attract attention to new developments of religious truth. Miracles have been frequently 
called the great bell which summons the congregation, but after it has assembled it may hear 

1 For opposite view see Dr. Crosby, “ Joshua,” and Dr. Blaikie, “ Joshua.” 2 Habakkuk iii, 11. 

3 Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” I, p. 275. 4 Stanley, p. 277. . 

6 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary,” p. 15, ft seq. 



MIRACLES A RESULT OF HIGHER LAW. 


397 


something better than the noise of the bell. So with the progress of thought there is constantly 
a tendency to reduce the miraculous element to the lowest possible point. That element was 
certainly present during the Jewish history previous to the dawn of Christianity; that element 
most gloriously marked the birth of the Christian faith and the establishment of Christian 
truth in so many nations of the earth. It is not surprising that the presence of Jesus Christ 
among men should have been accompanied by unusual manifestations of the divine presence 
and power; but after his ascension it was to be expected that the miraculous element should, to 
a great degree, disappear from sight and thought. He had given the fullest manifestations of 
power necessary to the establishment of his truth. 1 All that man needed for his salvation was 
now made known. Faith in the power and mercy of God was able to transform character and 
to fit men for heaven. The modern miracles of the Roman Church will not bear the test of 
careful scrutiny. They are neither needed nor established. They tend greatly to throw 
suspicion upon the true miracles of Judaism and of apostolic days. The supposed miracles of 
healing, so frequently quoted by Roman writers, are paralleled by equally striking examples of 
healing on the part of devout Protestant churches or other religious organizations; and these, 
in turn, are paralleled by supposed cases of healing on the part of men and communities 
making no claim to any power but magnetism or some other occult science. As to the question 
of the possibility of miracles, we are free to say that when we admit God we may unques¬ 
tionably admit all that God sees necessary to be done for the revelation of his will and the 
establishment of his Church; and there really is neither small nor great with God. All the 
discoveries of modern science are making it easier than ever before to believe in the existence of 
God and in the manifestations of his power which have been usually called miraculous; the 
universality and invariability of law do not eliminate God. Back of all laws is God, and 
through them he works. Back of all forms of evolution is God as the great Evolver; and 
nothing can be evolved which was not first involved. Invariable forces and laws are, after 
all, most plastic in the hands of men moving in harmony with intelligent knowledge of these 
laws and forces. The will of man is constantly working upon physical agencies in obedience 
to invariable laws. The hand which holds up a book checks for the time being the law of 
gravitation by introducing another law. The law of preservation in salt checks the law of 
destruction in meat. The higher law controls the lower. 

We make no greater claim for God in relation to miracles than we may rightly make for 
man in relation to scientific progress in our own day. The discovery of electricity, in its 
various applications, is almost miraculous. What to-day is a truism was yesterday an unknown 
phenomenon. The finger of God seems to drive the trolley cars through our streets; and we 
are to make in the near future discoveries still more marvelous than those which have been 
made in the recent past. To-day thoughts instantaneously leap from America to England, 3,000 
miles under the mighty deep. Here is what once would have been called a miracle. Here is 
an adaptation of law which is not miraculous, but perfectly natural. We are greatly in need 
of a new definition of miracles. To-day, Paris speaks to London and to Brussels through the 
telephone. To-day, New York speaks to Chicago, in round numbers 1,000 miles away, through 
the telephone. The opening of this long-distance telephone marked an era in the history 
of invention. To-day telegraphs girdle the world, making it a whispering gallery. To-day 
telautographs reproduce writing between London and Paris and other cities hundreds of miles 
away; and the page-printing telegraph sends messages in perfect typescript. If man can 
talk to man 1,000 miles away, who will dare say that man cannot talk to God and that God 
cannot talk to man ? Telepathy may yet explain thousands of secrets now profound mysteries. 
Perhaps communication with God may be in a truly glorious sense most natural, God speaking 
to us and we to God in perfect harmony with natural laws now unknown by us. We are 

1 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary.” 



398 


SCIENCE THE HANDMAID OF FAITH. 


discovering new laws governing locomotion. We shall discover still more wonderful laws, in 
these and other respects, before many years shall pass. We shall cross the Atlantic in five 
days, propelled by steam; soon, perhaps, in half that time propelled by electricity; and not 
much later, perhaps, we shall cross the ocean in air ships in journeys reckoned by hours instead 
of days. We have brought lightning from the clouds; we use the sun to print photographs. 
We are able to register the amount of heat generated by the flash of a firefly. We may yet be 
able to tell the amount of good or evil which men exert over those who come near them. Our 
discoveries are so wonderful that they have ceased to excite wonder. Who will dare to say 
what God can do, without violating law, when man has accomplished such wonders in harmony 
with higher laws, lately discovered? All true science is the handmaid of true faith; all 
scientific discoveries make faith in God easy; and revelations which once were difficult, are 
now explicable and simple. Surely it is not so wonderful that God could arrest the course of 
a river like the Jordan, when man can drain seas in Holland, transforming them into fruitful 
fields. Surely it is not so wonderful that God should make a path through the midst of the 
Red Sea, when man can achieve the wonders of modern times. Surely it is not so wonderful 
that the Creator of heaven and earth should cause the walls of Jericho to fall to the ground, 
and that, perhaps, by perfectly natural means, pressing into his service laws with whose 
existence and operations we are not familiar, when a little girl by touching a button caused 
an explosion of the rocks in the East River near New York, or when one could cause an 
explosion which would lay Chicago, New York, Paris, or London in ruins. Who are we that 
we talk about what God cannot do ? Who are most of us that we presume to talk of what man 
cannot do ? Who are even our greatest scientists who presume to deny what greater scientists 
may accomplish in the near future ? The discoveries of science really render faith in miracles 
easy, natural, and, one might almost say, inevitable. These discoveries put the defense of 
revelation into the same category with the defense of modern achievements by the discoveries 
of laws only recently known and employed. The discovery of these laws in these later days 
has brought man into a position in which the vastly sublimer actions of God, in what we call 
miracles, are seen to be only the result of the application of higher laws which, for the time 
being, hold in check the usual operations of lower laws with which we are familiar. It could 
easily be shown that in one sense our Lord’s miracles were natural; they certainly were not 
contra-natural, even though we may say they were supernatural. The man who opposes a 
divine revelation because of its affirmations regarding natural phenomena, might with equal 
propriety oppose the affirmations of modern science regarding any phenomenal events with 
which he did not chance to be familiar. The fact is that all true science lays its crown at the 
feet of the Almighty Creator, and becomes the handmaid of divine revelation. In the presence 
alike of true science and divine revelation, human ignorance should be modest, obedient, and 
reverent. 



CHAPTER V. 

MORAL DIFFICULTIES IN BOOK OF JOSHUA. 

I N the judgment of many critics, the moral difficulties in the Book of Joshua are greater 
than the astronomical, or the other miraculous phenomena. Why did God permit, or 
command, the extermination of the Canaanites? This question many objectors to divine 
revelation have asked, and they have answered it with serious reflection upon the Bihle and 
the God of the Bible. Several considerations ought to be mentioned at this point to enable us 
the better to understand this whole question. The history of the partial extermination of the 
Canaanites is brought out very clearly in connection with the successive massacres following the 
battle of Beth-horon. We might have considered this matter at that point in the history; but 
there will be a gain in commenting on these difficulties in their relation to one another. Most 
persons who read the closing portions of the Book of Joshua are greatly confused by the 
divine sanction of the cruelties connected with these fearful massacres. One naturally asks, 
How could such massacres occur without demoralizing the people who were humanly respon¬ 
sible for their commission ? How could a book claiming to be divine even seem to indorse such 
terrible slaughter ? Some persons have endeavored to explain the matter by a partial denial of 
the facts; while others have attempted to treat this part of the history as if it were a mere 
allegory. And still others have illustrated the divine method by a reference to the destruction 
of human life in epidemics, in earthquakes, and in other great natural convulsions. 

The extermination of the Canaanites was in obedience to the command of God. In 
Deuteronomy we read, “ Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly 
destroy them;” 1 and the reason assigned is, “that they teach you not to do after all their 
abominations.” 2 Is such a command in harmony with the divine attributes of justice and 
mercy? It ought to be borne in mind that God’s revelation of himself is given in sundry 
parts, according as men are able to receive the truth. God has to do — it is said reverently— 
the best he can with the material in his hand. The age of Joshua was particularly marked 
by ignorance of the character of God, and was correspondingly characterized by a low ethical 
standard among men. Men were savage and brutal; acts were allowed, and even commanded, 
at that time which would have been utterly forbidden under the Gospel of Christ. Men had 
not then learned to say, “ Our Father who art in Heaven.” 3 They thought of God as a God 
of strict justice; and no other thought was then fully made known. The spirit of mercy 
inculcated by Christ was entirely unknown. It is thus quite unfair to carry back from the 
New Testament the morality it teaches, and to apply it to the conduct of men living in this 
early age. 

It was also an age when might made right. Property was not an individual possession, 
but rather that of the community. And as a consequence, communities rather than individuals 
were held responsible for the acts performed. Punishment of the nations was, therefore, in 
harmony with the conditions of life and the form of justice then prevailing. Joshua thought 
himself the minister of God in punishing the sins of the Canaanites. The people of Canaan 
might have been punished, as were those of Sodom and Gomorrah, by a special divine retribu¬ 
tion, without the sword of Joshua; but such punishments would have been less instructive 
than the method employed. The Israelites were in a sense responsible for the morality of the 

1 Deuteronomy xiii, 15, xx, 16. 2 Deuteronomy xx, 16-18. 3 Matthew vi, 9. 


399 



400 


JUSTIFICATION OF JOSHUA. 


Canaanites, as for that of Israel; and no act of God could so impress the hatefulness of sin on 
the part of the Canaanites as the employment of the Israelites as his instrument in punishing 
their crimes. 

It ought to be borne in mind, also, that the Canaanites were guilty of the most abominable 
crimes conceivable by the human mind—crimes heinous above those committed by others of 
their time. They sinned against the light of nature, against the examples of patriarchs of an 
earlier generation, and against the warnings given by God in the punishment of the cities of 
the plain. If it was wrong for God to punish the Canaanites by the sword of Joshua, it would 
have been wrong for him to punish them by an epidemic, pestilence, or other natural display 
of his righteous wrath. God certainly has permitted epidemics in all countries. He has also 
permitted massacres frequently to take place in connection with the movements of armies in 
all lands. When people sink into luxury and vice, they bring terrible punishment upon 
themselves, as the inevitable consequence of the laws of nature which they violate. Other 
conquerors, such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, were far less merciful than was 
Joshua. The Greeks and Romans stained the progress of their armies by crimes from which 
Joshua was entirely free. These classic nations did not hesitate to dedicate captive women to 
the impure worship of Aphrodite or Mylitta. The violation of women and children was almost 
universal in the case of towns sacked by armies of the earlier heathen and even of the later 
Christian days. In later days the severities of the period of Joshua find many parallels in the 
bloodshed and lust which marked the steps of the victorious barbarians who destroyed the 
Roman power. Goths, Vandals, Huns, Bulgarians, and Turks frequently surpassed Joshua in 
their pitiless cruelties. 1 The conduct of the Duke of Alva, acting in the Netherlands in 
harmony with Philip II. of Spain and the Pope of Rome, was vastly more abominable, in its 
varied forms of atrocities, than were the conquests of Joshua over the Canaanites. How could 
God permit these barbarities in later and more enlightened days ? How could God even appar¬ 
ently, by providential opportunities, indorse the commission of these awful crimes ? How could 
God permit the horrible cruelties of the Spanish Inquisition ? We do not answer one difficulty 
by suggesting others, but we show at least that the problem is not peculiar to the time of 
Joshua or to the revelations given in the Bible. If the God of revelation be cruel, the God of 
nature must be considered equally cruel; for nature inflicts its wrath upon weak women and 
harmless children even in our own time. 2 

It ought to be remembered, also, that the punishment inflicted by Joshua was not intended 
to gratify a cruel disposition on the part of Israel. All students of history know that the 
institutions and principles of the Israelites were vastly more humane than were those of the 
surrounding nations. In punishing the Canaanites God was expressing his stern indignation 
against abominable vice. These vices would, by the operation of natural laws, have brought 
upon any nation guilty of such practices a more cruel death than that inflicted by Joshua. 
We have only to turn to Leviticus 3 to see the awful catalogue of abominations which, we are 
distinctly told, were committed by the men of the land. 4 We are also told that God abhorred 
the defilements of the people. 5 Some forms of their crimes were long punishable by death in 
Great Britain and her colonies, when the laws were strictly enforced. No words are too strong 
to express the abhorrence which all men ought to feel, and which pure men do feel, against the 
nameless crimes committed by these Canaanites. The power of the women of the land to lead 
Israel into sin was sufficiently and terribly proved; indeed, there seemed to be no means of 
preserving Israel in purity but by the destruction of these impure seducers. As a matter of 
fact, whenever Israel refused to destroy these panderers of vice, she herself lapsed into the 

1 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary.” 

2 John Stuart Mill, in his “ Essay on Nature,” accepts this position. See Bishop Butler’s use of this argument. 

3 Leviticus xviii, 20. 4 Leviticus xviii, 23-30. 5 Leviticus xx, 23. 





THE PUNISHMENT OF THE CANAANITES. 


401 


abominably idolatrous practices about her. In all such cases lust, cruelty, and bloodshed 
abounded, and soon innocent children were sacrificed on the altars of Moloch. Who will say 
that the utmost severity commanded by God and inflicted by Joshua was not, in the largest 
sense, the greatest kindness to the greatest number? 

We ought also to remember, as has already been suggested, that the commands of God 
through Moses were greatly in advance of the moral education of the world at the time. We 
have often so dwelt upon the failure of the Israelites to carry out God’s grand designs that 
we have not adequately appreciated their helpful influences. The history of the conquest of 
Palestine will compare favorably with the history of most other conquests throughout the world. 
Never was a leader of conquering armies less governed by selfish, personal, and ambitious ends 
than was Joshua. Placed alongside of Caesar, Alexander, Charles V., Philip II., or even 
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1 Joshua appears conspicuous for his purity of heart, his unselfishness of 
aim, and his consideration for all the interests alike of conquerors and conquered. Men must 
always be judged with reference to the standard of morality of the times in which they lived. 
Moses and Joshua were far in advance of the moral standard of their age; they were the 
unworldly and the godly men of their time. The charge rightly made against Columbus is that 
he lived far below the highest standard of his time. The Jewish religion never introduced 
barbarism into the world; on the contrary, it greatly softened the spirit of cruelty wherever it 
was established. 

It ought also to be observed that God had given the Canaanites repeated warnings of 
approaching judgment. Their religion, as we have seen, was impure and degrading almost 
beyond description. God was now to introduce the fullest manifestation of his kingdom yet 
made among men; and it was necessary that the foul heathenism of the nations should be 
destroyed. It was so abominable that when 1,500 years later it spread to Rome, the satirists of 
that day regarded its advent as an enormous calamity. The people of God, in order to establish 
a purer faith and to develop a nobler race, required a territory from which such evil influences 
were absent, and in which they might have the opportunity of exercising their noblest 
endeavors; but until the abominations of the heathen were removed entirely such development 
was an utter impossibility. God had given the Canaanites line upon line, precept upon precept, 
here a little and there a great deal. When God has great purposes to accomplish in national 
life, he requires a properly prepared sphere in which to operate. Forty years had passed since 
the Red Sea was crossed. The people knew of God’s wonders in Egypt, and of the victories 
over the kings of Gilead and Bashan. They knew how God claimed universal homage, and 
how he had opposed all forms of evil among the nations. They knew, also, how he had 
chastised the Hebrews for participating in the abominations of Baal-peor. Raliab distinctly 
informed the spies that she had known of God’s mighty judgments, and of God’s divine 
purposes regarding Palestine, and of God’s sublime position as not only the God of Israel, but 
also “ God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.” 2 

It was the practice in that day among all nations, to put to death prisoners of war. The 
humanity of our time, as seen in the customs of war, is the development of thousands of years, 
and a similar spirit could not be expected in that early day. Dr. Arnold 3 rightly teaches us 
that “ the Israelites’ sword, in its bloodiest executions, wrought a work of mercy for all the 
countries of the earth, to the very end of the world.” Similar truths are illustrated in America. 
God had great purposes in the establishment of the American Republic. But in order that 
Pilgrim and Puritan fathers might have an appropriate sphere for planting and developing the 
great principles of American civilization and Christianity, the Indian had to be driven back 
from his former hunting grounds. The process has continued until this day. The Indian’s 
territory was demanded for a higher civilization; and for that purpose, by various providential 


1 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary,” p. 15. 


2 Joshua ii, 11. 


3 “Dr. Arnold’s Sermons,” VI, 35-37. 



402 


USEFULNESS OF SEVERITY. 


combinations, it was taken. The Indian has been driven back, and back, almost to the other 
edge of the continent. The process will go on until he is either civilized or exterminated. 
Doubtless great cruelties have been practiced against the Indian on our own continent; doubt¬ 
less solemn treaties have been broken, and the white man has been guilty of much injustice 
toward his red brother. Nevertheless, there is divine justice and an inevitable necessity in the 
operation of the law that the nations that will not submit to the highest civilization of their 
time shall by that very civilization be destroyed. The greatest good of the greatest number 
necessitates the execution of this apparently severe but universal and eternal law. 

It ought, also, to be borne in mind that often apparent severity is the truest leniency in 
war. Instances are found frequently in modern times and in many lands. The conduct of the 
British armies in suppressing the Sepoy atrocities in the Indian mutiny is a case in point, 
although their terrible severity has sometimes shocked the world; but no doubt it contributed 
in the end to the decrease of sorrow and suffering, and to the speedy establishment of peace 
and prosperity. The same principle is illustrated in Cromwell’s storming of Drogheda, in 
Ireland. He has sometimes been fiercely criticised for that terrible massacre, but Cromwell’s 
act received justification not only in his own day, but in our time as well. Carlyle does not 
hesitate to affirm that, terrible as was Oliver’s surgery, he believed that he simply inflicted the 
judgment of God, and prevented suffering by bringing the war to a speedy end, and so was 
more merciful than had he pursued a gentler course. Cromwell’s own words are: “ I am 
persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God, and that it will tend to prevent the effusion 
of blood for the future.” As a matter of fact, his sternness speedily ended the Irish war. Had 
the Israelites followed up their first successes by similar crushing victories, they would speedily 
have made themselves absolute masters of the whole of Palestine. But, unfortunately, they left 
their work half done, and they frequently and severely suffered as a consequence of their 
disobedience to God, and apparent sympathy with the Canaanites. 

It ought still to be borne in mind, as already hinted, that the standard of moral character 
which is employed by some critics in judging of Joshua and these Old Testament heroes is 
derived from Christ and the New Testament. This course is manifestly unscientific, unphilo- 
sophic, and unhistoric; we ought not to carry back these standards of the New Testament and 
apply them to the conduct of Old Testament saints. Indeed, the tenderer men are, the more 
righteously indignant do they become against wrong wherever found. He is only a being of 
paste and putty whose anger does not flash out against crimes committed against God and men. 
Jesus was a terrible preacher of wrath against the hypocrites of his day. There are times in 
which the severest of the imprecatory psalms become the appropriate vehicles of the expression 
of the thought of the most righteous souls. The Psalmist could say of the enemies of God, “ I 
hate them with a perfect hatred.” 1 Christian charity may not use such language in our day, 
but the tenderest love can appreciate the element of moral indignation even in such language as 
this. We have come to a time when we do not say, “ an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”; 
Christ has taught that we are to turn the other cheek to him who smites us; that we are to love 
our enemies and bless them that curse us. 2 Attention has been called to the fact that during 
the Sepoy atrocities, in connection with the Indian mutiny, the Book of Joshua was read in the 
churches with a great sense of its appropriateness. 3 There is need to-day of the moral indigna¬ 
tion against evil expressed in many of the psalms, and illustrated in the conduct of Joshua and 
the Israelites. There is an anger that is not sinful. Let us not be wiser than was God; let us 
be modest in passing judgment upon those who were brought into contact with the abominable 
cruelties and indescribable impurities which the Moabites committed in honor of Chemosh, and 
the Philistines in honor of Dagon. God had his purpose all through this bloody period. His 
people were struggling, not for themselves only, but for us most truly. They were fighting, not 


1 Psalm cxxxix, 22. 


2 Matthew v, 38-44. 


3 Stanley, “Jewish Church,” I, p. 281. 



CANAANITISH GODS AND GOVERNMENT. 


403 

simply against tlie enemies of Israel, but against the enemies of humanity. They did God’s 
work, and we to this hour are reaping good fruit from the seed of truth which they sowed, 
though often they sowed amid tears and blood. 

Fuller attention must be called to the religion of the Canaanites, which was so terrible a 
snare to the Israelites at so many periods in their history. God intended his people to hold 
and to teach a spiritual religion. The Israelites from the earliest period of their history were 
under the tutelage of God, and were at the same time exposed to the dangerous influences of 
surrounding heathen nations. These nations found it difficult to rise above the modes of 
thought and the standards of morality of their time and environment. The religion of the 
Canaanites was the worship of misinterpreted natural phenomena, which, when so explained, 
ministered to the vilest moral impurity, and revealed itself in degrading rites and in cruel 
acts. Its gross conceptions dominated all "Western Asia. The Israelites must have shrunk 
with loathing from the sensual passions of the Canaanites as contrasted with the nobler purity 
of the teachings of Moses. But those of weaker religious faith, we can readily understand, 
must have been carried away by the seductive influences of this sensuous and sensual religion. 
Baal was the chief god of the Canaanites; under different names he was worshiped. Now he 
was Moloch, now he was Chemosh; but he was always fierce, cruel, sensual, degraded, and 
degrading. The female deity was Astarte or Aslitoreth, the moon and the planet Venus. This 
goddess was worshiped with forms and rites degrading beyond description, and almost beyond 
conception. Some of the Israelites may have fallen into the neglect of all religion; but others 
occasionally adopted the faith and observed the rites of their idolatrous neighbors. There was 
a remnant, even in the most lapsed periods, still loyal to God; and even among those who had 
drifted into idolatry there was a latent religious life which responded to the call of God’s 
servants for a spiritual faith and a purer life. Not until a much later period did idolatry 
secure a firm grip on the people of Israel as a whole. After the death of Joshua, frequently 
various social relations were formed with the people still in the land; and even many inter¬ 
marriages occurred. It thus came to pass that the conquered were often in turn conquerors, 
because of their social and business relations with their Hebrew neighbors. 

Palestine at the time when the Israelites entered the country was governed by a number of 
petty but independent kings. A great change had taken place in the condition of the soil, in 
the methods of its cultivation, and, indeed, in the entire state of the country since the time when 
the nomad patriarchs had wandered over the land. The pastoral life had, to a considerable 
extent, given way to agricultural pursuits; the vine and olive were extensively cultivated. 
Strongly fortified cities arose on the heights and dotted the plains. The Canaanites proved 
themselves to be a warlike people. Those who were heads of tribes in the days of Jacob were 
local kings in the days of Joshua. These local sovereigns represented various tribes who were 
united in a common alarm by the sudden invasion of the Israelites, for they came not as 
marauding tribes seeking plunder, but as a whole people with the avowed intention of making 
a permanent home in the land, and of reducing the country to subjection. The more fertile 
hills of the land were soon cultivated in artificial terraces; while on others orchards of fruit 
trees were planted, and the still more rocky hills were covered with vineyards. Even to the 
present time the soil of Palestine is naturally rich; and, were it not for the disturbing wars and 
the abominable misgovernment of many ages, Palestine would still be fruitful. Were it 
possible even now to drive out the present occupants of the country, with their poor agricultural 
methods and their cruel systems of government, to introduce intelligent tillers of the soil, and 
to establish reputable forms of government, Palestine would again blossom as the rose. The 
land in that early day bore within itself all that was necessary for the subsistence and comfort 
of those primitive peoples. The climate was healthful and the seasons regular. The autumnal 
rains began about the last of October and prepared the ground for the seed; and the spring 
28 


404 


CHARACTER OF THE CONQUERORS. 


rains prevailed during March and the beginning of April, causing the seed to spring up with 
great rapidity. Soon after the cessation of the rains, the grain rapidly ripened, and might be 
gathered in about the end of May. The first grapes ripened in July, but the vintage was not 
over till September. Although the summer months were dry and hot, the nights, as in so 
many tropical countries, were cool, and the dew fell copiously. Grains of all kinds grew 
abundantly, and might be gathered in about the end of May, yielding some thirty, some 
sixty, and some one hundredfold. Besides the vine, the olive, the almond, the date, and 
many sorts of figs, the orange, the pomegranate, and other fruit trees grew luxuriantly even 
in that early day. 

The men who conquered Canaan were endowed with the noblest attributes of heroes, 
measured by the standards of their time. Every reader of Anglo-Saxon history is stirred by 
the story of its heroes in battle and its peaceful founders of enduring states. No American can 
read the early history of the American Republic without earnest appreciation of the “ brave 
men and fair women ” who crossed the stormy sea, who landed on the historic rock, and who 
struggled against savage foes, a barren soil, and a wintry climate to lay the enduring foundation 
of the American Republic. These Puritan and Pilgrim fathers were men of lofty motive, of 
high endeavor, of unmurmuring patience, and of heroic achievements. Doubtless, at times, 
they were stern as they were brave, severe as they were sincere; but they always meant to be 
loyal to God and helpful to man. 

Men of this character were required to conquer the territory that lay west of the Jordan, 
and to establish a pure and theocratic people. Their wilderness experience was not without its 
helpful influence on mind and heart. It transformed them from a company of tribes into a 
solid and heroic nation. Its hardships were the messengers of God for the development of 
a great, brave, and wise people. Still, it is true that many of them lacked these noble qualities; 
true that some of them were not far removed from the barbarous spirit and practices of their 
heathen neighbors; true that they were disposed once to return to Egypt, and many times to 
lapse into idolatry. But the elements of a great nation were present, and God was developing 
those elements into the symmetrical character of a people called by him and consecrated to the 
ennoblement of the entire race. They did not literally obey the command of God to drive out 
the enemy from the chosen territory; for it was really two and a half centuries later before the 
accomplishment of the divine purpose was secured. The mountainous districts practically 
yielded to the power of the invaders; there the Canaanites were slaughtered or made tributary; 
but the Israelites were unable to take some cities, and unable to meet the war chariots of the 
Canaanites on the plains. God was, however, developing the nobler qualities of his people, 
while he was restraining or eliminating their evil and idolatrous tendencies. This body of 
nomads became tolerably successful in gaining a home by conquest. They secured possession 
of many rich pastures and fertile corn lands; and marvelous things, in the providence of God, 
were eventually achieved by these invaders. The world of that day never saw a diviner man 
than was Moses; a more heroic and knightly leader than Joshua, and a more honest, blameless, 
and capable man as philosopher, statesman, prophet, and judge, than Samuel. 

After the great victory which Joshua and his brave followers accomplished at Beth-horon, 
new work pressed upon his attention. He was now a man of about ninety, but capable to an 
unusual degree as a soldier on the field, or as a leader in council. Israel had achieved great 
things; great, goodly, and strong cities, which she had not built, were hers. Vineyards and 
olive trees which she had not planted, and houses full of all good things, she possessed. Con¬ 
sequently, the great work now awaiting Joshua was the division of this chosen land among 
the tribes of Israel. Part of the country was, indeed, still held by the Canaanites, but its 
complete conquest was assumed, and for purposes of distribution the whole land was considered 
as in the possession of Israel. But a little more than six years had passed since the crossing of 


DIVISION OF THE LAND. 


405 


the Jordan, and during that time great victories had been achieved. Joshua was still strong 
and heroic as when Moses had chosen him to be his successor. Great and pressing duties 
required the exercise of all the wisdom and influence which he had acquired during these years 
of public service. The division of the land among the tribes of Israel will not suffer in respect 
to equity and fruitful results, when compared with the wisest divisions of conquered territory in 
modern times. A great assembly of the people was held at Gilgal; Joshua, Eleazar, and the 
elders presiding over the people. We have already seen that two and a half of the tribes — 
Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh — had secured their tribal allotments on the east of the 
Jordan. Still nine and one-lialf tribes awaited their share. The tribe of Joseph was now 
divided into the two sections of Ephraim and Manasseh; and this tribe, because of its heroic 
history, and because of Joshua’s connection with it, claimed precedence. They demanded the 
best part of the country, the central portion, in which water abounded and whose soil was 
specially fruitful. They seemed to have acted promptly and to have secured their desire. 
Ephraim took possession of the country north and south of Shechem, with its beautiful valleys 
and gracefully rounded hills. In Shechem the bones of Joseph were buried, and there Abra¬ 
ham and Jacob had long dwelt. Naturally, therefore, because of its historic associations and 
central advantages, it became, in some sense, the capital of the land. In extent and importance 
no tribe surpassed it but Judah. Immediately north of this district the half tribe of Manasseh, 
which joined its fortunes with Ephraim, found a home; it extended north of Ephraim to the 
plain of Esdraelon and Mount Carmel. 

Although they were embarrassed by the presence of the Canaanitish fortresses in the plain 
of Esdraelon, Joshua did not sympathize with their desire to secure the help of other tribes in 
driving out the Canaanites. He promised that the hill country and the forests should be theirs, 
and assured them that eventually they should drive out the Canaanites, though the latter were 
so strong with their horses and chariots. “The house of Joseph” was, therefore, obliged to 
content itself with its present possessions, and with these promises of future aggrandizement. 
The possessions of Dan consisted of certain cities within the original territory of Judea. On 
the seacoast it extended some distance above Joppa, and included a portion of the plain of 
Sharon. It included the cities of Lydda, Ekron, Beth-Dagon, and Joppa. Finally it was 
forced back into the hills and had not sufficient space for its 64,000 fighting men. Dan had no 
patron tribe as had Simeon and Benjamin; it had, therefore, to lead a sort of camp life. Its 
location was known even in later times as the “ Camp of Dan this was near Kirjath-jearim, 
and a few miles west of Jerusalem. We shall see later that they conquered some Canaanites 
near Mount Hermon and changed the name of the town from Laish to Dan. Naphtali’s posses¬ 
sion ran up into the delightful valleys of the Anti-Libanus; it bends upward from the south of 
the Sea of Galilee to meet Asher. A long narrow strip of land on the seacoast was assigned to 
Asher, reaching from Carmel northward. The territory of Zebulun was north of Issachar, west 
of the Jordan and a part of the Sea of Galilee. The tribe stretched across the land with one 
extremity on the Sea of Galilee, and the other reaching to some part of the Bay of Accho. 
Issachar, one-half of Manasseh, and Ephraim occupied the territory extending from the Jordan 
to the Mediterranean. Issachar had, in some respects, the finest part of the country; its home 
was in the rich plains of Esdraelon. It included the Mounts of Hermon and Gilboa. There 
was no more fertile or beautiful portion in Palestine. Ephraim’s territory, as we have seen, 
was fertile, though uneven in some parts and in others mountainous. It extended from the 
Jordan to the Mediterranean. Samaria and the valley of Sharon were included in Ephraim. 
On its northern extremity rose Ebal and Gerizim, and in the south was Mount Ephraim, some 
of whose passes are associated with important events in the military history of Israel. Ephraim 
for four centuries was a dominant tribe; within its boundaries was the religious capital, Shiloh, 
and the political capital, Shechem. It was thus long the center of Jewish life; and after the 


GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS. 


406 

death of Solomon it regained its former position, as such a center. Benjamin, the client of 
Ephraim, received the territory which included the fertile plains and rich groves of Jericho, 
and spread over part of the valley of the Jordan, and the head of the Dead Sea, and extended 
westward as far as Jebus, afterward Jerusalem, but then a fortress in the possession of the 
enemy. The rest of the south, to the borders of Edom, became the opulent domain of the great 
tribe of Judah, with the exception of a district on the southwest about Gaza, which was 
assigned to Simeon. Simeon’s possession consisted of certain cities rather than of a continuous 
territory. We have already seen that the best pastures were in the romantic regions on the east 
of the Jordan, but the most productive lands for grain were the central plains, while the best 
lands for the grape and the olive were the hills of Judah and Benjamin. 

Distinguished men like Joshua and Caleb received special grants of estates; perhaps the 
heads of the tribes enjoyed somewhat similar privileges, but the whole land came under general 
laws of property. Houses and walled cities might be sold in perpetuity, if unredeemed, within 
the year; but the law of the inalienability of estates was observed, so that land could be sold 
only for a limited period. At the time of the Jubilee, all estates reverted, without repurchase, 
to their original owners. The venerable Caleb, a survivor of the spies of forty-five years before, 
made a special claim to Hebron, on the ground of a grant made to him by Moses when he 
had explored the territory, and also as a gift from Joshua. Doubtless Joshua, with genuine 
delight, recognized this claim and cheerfully granted this land to his old and honored comrade. 
Caleb showed a superb spirit in the manner in which he claimed this territory. His heroic 
courage and exalted faith stir our blood as we read his brave words, remembering that he was 
so advanced in years. Joshua, with the self-abnegnation always characteristic of his desires 
and endeavors, took no inheritance for himself; but the nation honored itself by joyfully 
assigning to him as his possession Timnath-serah, in Mount Ephraim. Six cities of refuge 
were appointed in appropriate locations. There were three on each side of the Jordan at a 
convenient distance from each other. One who had accidentally caused the death of another 
might fly to one of these cities, as an asylum from the avenger of blood, until his case could be 
properly considered. On the west side of the Jordan the three cities were Hebron, Shechem, 
and Kadesh of Naphtali; on the east the three were Golan, Ramotli-Gilead, and Bezer. The 
tribes were complete without reckoning Levi. This tribe was separated to the office of religion ; 
it therefore had no specific territory, but constituted the priesthood and was to receive its 
support from the community at large. Nothing could be more beautiful than the spirit mani¬ 
fested by Joshua during all these important transactions. He was as wise in his methods as he 
was unselfish in his motives; he was as skillful a ruler in peace as he was a successful general 
in war. 

The account of this division of the territory among the tribes forms the second part of the 
Book of Joshua, 1 the “ Domesday Book ” of Palestine, as it has been called. The laws that 
were established for the government of the people were eminently wise and patriotic. God was 
recognized as the “Lord of the Soil,” and every fifty years he resumed possession of the 
territory and then returned it to the descendants of the original owners. It has been supposed 
that the suggestion of this plan was of Egyptian origin. The king of Egypt, during the admin¬ 
istration of Joseph, was recognized as the proprietor of the land, and leased it out on a rent 
which is supposed to correspond to the tithes paid by the Israelites. The people were thus, 
in a sense, an independent body, cultivating their hereditary farms, whose boundaries always 
remained the same. A neighbor’s landmark was not to be removed, and the attempt to 
remove it in later days was denounced by prophets with great severity. The law against usury 
was enforced. Loans, however, might be made as a charitable accommodation, and the only 
taxes were the two tenths, or tithes, and other religious offerings. The first tenth was given to 


1 Joshua xiii-xxiii. 



SETTLEMENT IN CANAAN. 


407 


the tribe of Levi for maintaining a learned nobility, and in remuneration for their surrender of 
a twelfth of the land; the second tenth was the tithe of the poor. The only public revenue of 
this theocratic commonwealth was that of the sacred treasury, and corresponding to this the 
only public expenditures were for religious worship. The commerce of the country was 
confined to the inland caravan trade. The people seem to have been blind at this period to the 
maritime advantages of their location. Their ports remained for a considerable time in posses¬ 
sion of their enemies, and were the last places conquered. The manufactures of the people 
supplied their limited wants; they brought from Egypt the arts of weaving woolen, linen, and 
probably cotton stuffs, and also the art of dyeing and bleaching, of making vessels, of working 
in iron and precious metals, and of doing many kinds of ornamental work which were used 
mostly in connection with the altars and sacred vessels of their religious worship. It thus 
came to pass that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob found a home in the land of 
promise; under his own vine and fig tree dwelt each man with his family. Until after the 
death of Joshua there was no serious disturbance of the harmony of the nation. The misun¬ 
derstanding between the tribes on this and that side of the Jordan was peacefully adjusted. 
The tribes beyond the river, although they had raised a public altar to God, disclaimed all 
intention of doing violence to the honor of a single national place of worship. They raised 
their altar not to offer rival sacrifices, but with the laudable purpose of affirming to later 
posterity that their tribes, also, were a part of the national confederacy. 


CHAPTER VI. 

JOSHUA AND JUDGES CONTRASTED. 

TT7ITH the conquest of Canaan the tribes entered on another era in their eventful history. 

* ’ They now found themselves a settled nation in the divinely appointed land. They were 
no more a wandering tribe, but a civilized and agricultural people. A feeling of repose and 
gratitude filled their hearts. The festivals of the harvest and the vintage were commemorations 
of this sense of comfort and possession. The country, as we have seen, had previously been 
inhabited by a remarkable people; and the history of the Israelites down to the Captivity was 
to give evidence of their proximity to the Canaanite peoples, with their peculiar social customs 
and heathen rites. It has been well remarked that their occupancy of the chosen land bears a 
somewhat similar relation to the entrance of the Christian Church into territories of the Roman 
empire, once possessed by pagan peoples. They, as a holy people, were occupying that territory 
as a holy land. Their land was peculiarly secluded by sea, by desert, and by river from the 
surrounding world. They were a people who were to dwell alone among the nations of the 
earth, and yet their land was so central, lying between Assyria and Egypt, that it already 
possessed present influence and the prophecy of subsequent enlargement. Like Greece, it 
was small and compact, and yet large enough to develop a legitimate rivalry among its own 
various tribes. It possessed a sufficient diversity of productions to stimulate the ambition of an 
agricultural people. It was peculiarly fitted by its conformation and its geographical position 
to give birth to a Bible for all nations, to be the home of him who was the Desire, and is to be 
the King, of all peoples, and to be the cradle of that Church which eventually is to fill the 
whole earth. 

Remnants of the Canaanite people still remained in the land. One glance at this people, 
as we pass, will be instructive. Usually the remnants of a partially conquered people take 



408 


A CANAAN! TE REMNANT — WARS OF JUDAH. 


refuge among the mountains. This was true of the Gothic people in Spain after the invasion 
of the Moors; this has been true repeatedly of the brave Highlanders in Scotland. But in 
Palestine the old inhabitants took refuge not in the mountains but in the plains. Their iron 
chariots and war horses enabled them to possess the plains, while the invaders were often driven 
to the mountains. Generally speaking, the Israelites possessed the hill country, and the 
Canaanites the plains. With only their infantry, the Israelites were no match for the cavalry 
and chariots of the Canaanites in the plains. Indeed, during the greater part of their sojourn 
in Palestine, they were not masters of their own plains, but were at one time at the mercy of 
the Canaanites, and at another of the Syrians. The battle of Merom forms an exception to the 
general rule in that Israel’s victory was on the level ground against the cavalry of Jabin. 1 The 
old inhabitants also retained, for the most part, possession of their strong fortresses. Their 
cities were great and fenced up to heaven. 2 At the first onset the invaders, carried away by 
fiery enthusiasm, overcame some of these fortresses, but later the older inhabitants maintained 
their ground and held their walled cities. The Avites, and other aboriginal peoples, also 
remained in the land. Along the seacoast were the Phoenician cities. The Canaanites long 
remained in Gezer under tribute; possibly they became again independent. But they were 
finally dispossessed by the king of Egypt, who gave the place to his daughter, the wife of 
Solomon. Beth-shean, which was called the “ Jebus of the North,” remained a heathen city 
under the name of Scythopolis to the time of the Christian era. It was situated on the route 
from Jerusalem to Damascus. On the northern frontier, and in other parts of the land, there 
were races ruled by independent kings, which retained their independence until the time of 
David; and there were also friendly and tributary tribes, such as the Kenites who were related 
by blood; they had already settled in the far south on the edge of the desert. Saul spared 
them 3 when sent by Samuel to destroy the Amalekites among whom they dwelt. There were 
other tributary tribes who seemed to have maintained that relationship until the time of 
Solomon. 

Judah had to struggle along for quiet possession of the territory it had chosen. At the 
conquest it boasted more fighting men than Ephraim ; it also had a higher military reputation. 
Judah held the land on all sides of Jerusalem except the north. Soon, her territory being too 
small, she engaged in numerous wars in which Simeon gave valuable help. In these tribal 
campaigns Bezek was conquered. 4 Hebron next fell before the power of the invaders. 5 The 
Canaanites had secured possession of it after its conquest by Joshua. But Caleb had claimed 
it and was determined to conquer it. Forty-five years before he had passed through it on his 
dangerous journey as a spy. Then he was full of manly strength ; but now, though he was old, 
he was determined to lead the attacking forces. The finest grapes in Palestine grew on the 
slopes of its valleys; and as the site of the Cave of Machpelah, where lay the bodies of the 
heroic founders of the race, it was dear to the hearts of the Israelites. Descendants of the once- 
dreaded Anakim were its masters. But heroic determination inspired the hearts of Caleb and 
his men, and soon they were masters of the historic town. Henceforth, it was the capital of the 
southern tribes, amid the varied experiences of the nation, until David captured Jebus and 
made that town immortal as the Jerusalem of song and story. As we shall see later, Debir 
had formerly been called “ Kirjath-sepher,” the “ book town.” It was located about three miles 
west of Hebron. Its location and history invited conquest and enkindled enthusiasm. Caleb 
offered the hand of his daughter as a prize to the brave leader who should take Debir. Othniel, 
whose name meant “ Lion of God,” and a younger brother, or perhaps a nephew, of Caleb, 
became master of Debir and claimed Achsah as his bride. She, however, desired a south land 
in which springs of water abounded, and her request was granted. In this way the Kenizzites 
came to possess the higher and the lower springs. Zephath was now destroyed, and its site 


1 Joshua xi. 


2 Deuteronomy ix, 1. 


3 1. Samuel xv, 6. 


4 Judges i, 4. 


5 Judges i, 10-20. 




ASCENT OF THE LOWER RANGE OF SINAI 























410 


THE SANCTUARIES OF PALESTINE. 


received the name of Hormah, “the banned” or destruction. Judah also took Gaza, Askelon, 
and Ekron, cities of Philistia, together with the land in which these cities lay; but again the 
chariots of the Canaanites were victorious and possession of these cities had to be given up and 
Judah retired again to the hills. Many of the foreign clans ranged themselves under the flag 
of Judah, and this tribe became very powerful. 

The first national Sanctuary in Palestine would naturally have been established at Bethel; 
but at the early stage of the conquest it was still in the hands of the Canaanites. The Ark, 
therefore, found its seat at Shiloh, where it remained through the period of the Judges until it 
was carried to the fatal battlefield. At the first, the Ark was at Gilgal, but as the conquerors 
entered farther into the country, a more central situation became necessary. Shiloh was prob¬ 
ably chosen, not because of the strength, beauty, or ancient associations of the place, but rather 
because of its comparative seclusion. Shiloh is supposed to have been nineteen miles north of 
Jerusalem, and eleven south of Shechem. During the period named it was the center of the 
worship of Jehovah. The name Shiloh was given probably because of the “rest” which now 
came to the weary conquerors in this quiet valley. Nevertheless, Shiloh was intended only as 
the temporary resting place of the Ark. The conquerors early fixed upon Shechem as the 
capital. This was the ancient city near which Jacob had first encamped, when he returned from 
Padan-aram ; 1 it was then a city of the Hivites. It was now the center of the great and haughty 
tribe of Ephraim to which Joshua himself belonged. Under an oak near Shechem, Jacob 
buried the amulets and teraphim of his household. His sons returned with their flocks to this 
fertile region. After the conquest, as we have seen, Joseph’s bones were buried in his inherit¬ 
ance near Shechem. Alike because of its central position and sacred associations, it became a 
gathering-place of the tribes. Here were the two sacred mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, about 
which gathered the associations of the curses and blessings of the law. Here Joshua won the 
tribes to a solemn engagement to serve Jehovah. Gerizim was the oldest Sanctuary in Palestine, 
reaching to the days of Abraham and Melchizedek; on its summit, according to Dean Stanley, 2 
are still pointed out, in Samaritan traditions, the twelve stones which Joshua laid in order. In 
their traditions he is enshrined alone of the Jewish heroes, after the time of Moses. He is 
“King Joshua,” and he takes up his abode on the “blessed mountain,” as Gerizim is always 
called. At Shechem, Joshua, as we shall soon see, appears as the representative of his tribe, 
checking its pride and warning it of approaching danger. 

It is evident that now dark shadows were beginning to fall on the heart of Joshua. He 
saw the dangers to which the people were exposed because of the influences exerted upon them 
by their heathen neighbors. It is touching in the extreme to study the history of Joshua at 
this critical and pathetic period of his life. From their isolated strongholds in the land, the 
Canaanites were still able to hold the Israelites in check, and by the influence of their idolatry 
to weaken their faith. A reaction soon began, and the Canaanites were speedily recovering 
themselves so that they drove the Israelites from the lowlands to the difficult mountainous 
heights. Joshua was now stricken in years. He had lived quietly for some time at Timnath- 
serah in Mount Ephraim. He knew that the end was approaching. He, therefore, ordered all 
Israel to assemble at Shechem. 3 This spot, as we have seen, was sacred in the history of the 
nation. Here Abraham erected his first altar in Canaan. Here was the first national burial 
place, although the sepulchers of some patriarchs were at Hebron. Joshua summoned the 
people to renew the covenant which had been made with Jehovah at Mounts Ebal and Gerizim. 
He delivered two solemn addresses, reminding the people of God’s wonderful fulfillment of the 
promises he had made to their fathers. He then caused them to renew their covenant with 
God. Joshua was not a great poet like Moses; and he uttered no words of farewell in poetic 
strains as did his mighty predecessor. The prophetic spirit, however, rested upon him, and in 


1 Geneais xxxiii, 18. 


Stanley, “Jewish Church,” I, pp. 310, 311. 


3 Joshua xxiv, 1. 



DEATH AND CHARACTER OF JOSHUA. 


411 


his last exhortation he charged the people to serve Jehovah, and warned them against the evils, 
of whose coming he had sad forebodings. Here in Shechem, among his last acts, he set up 1 a 
pillar of stone, in harmony with the customs of the time, to remind the people of the solemnity 
of their vow to their God, and the God of their fathers. Then the brave soldier and knightly 
leader passed away. He, as truly as Moses, is called the “ servant of the Lord.” 2 He died at 
the age of 110 years, and in his own city of Timnath-serah he was buried. Dean Stanley calls 
attention to the fact that on the summit of the Giant’s Hill, overlooking the Bosphorus and the 
Black Sea, the vast tomb of Joshua is shown by the Mohammedans. But the Jewish people 
cherished the remembrance of his sepulcher with fuller knowledge. In the same grave in 
Timnath-serah, according to an ancient tradition, were buried the stone knives used in the 
circumcision at Gilgal. These were long sought as relics by those who visited the tomb of 
Joshua. Thus he died twenty-five or twenty-six years after crossing the Jordan, full of years 
and foil of honor, and in his death the light of Israel for a time went out. 

Dr. Geikie 3 reminds u's that the investigations of our own day have linked the present 
and the remote past by the discovery of what seems almost beyond question to be the tomb of 
Joshua. M. Victor Guerin has the credit of this remarkable discovery. And the same writer 
further affirms that in 1870 additional confirmation, that this was really the tomb of Joshua, 
was obtained from the discovery made in it by Abbe Richard. It is said in our Greek Bible 
that the Israelites when they interred Joshua buried with him the flint knives used at Gilgal. 
While examining the tomb with that thought in mind, and in company with a priest from 
Jerusalem, and the sheik of the village El-Birzeit, the Abbe actually found in it a great 
number of flint knives which had been hidden in the soil of the different chambers of the 
sepulcher. Some doubt has been thrown, however, upon this identification, and the value of 
these discoveries. 

Thus died the successor of Moses. He was a superb example of a warrior, blameless, 
fearless, and devout. He was such a man as would kindle the imagination of poets who delight 
to describe the brave, tender, and pious knights of the middle ages. In him manly strength 
was beautifully combined with womanly tenderness. He led conquering armies and inflicted 
terrible judgments, because he believed himself to be an obedient instrument in the hand of 
God. He is certainly one of the grandest characters on the page of history, ancient or modern, 
sacred or profane. He appointed no successor. He left the people in the land of milk and 
honey, with many of the blessings of freedom and with marvelous opportunities for growth and 
progress, should they remain obedient to God. But their disobedience in not rooting out their 
ancient and implacable foes led to continual warfare, destroying their peace and freedom, and, 
before long, to a humiliating and degrading captivity. 

We now breathe a new historic atmosphere. We are still in the time of the theocracy, 
and yet we enter a different realm as we pass from the rule of Joshua to that of the Judges. 
We have gone from an age of comparative law and of acknowledged authority into a period of 
reckless rule and of lawless outbreaks. It is the heroic age of Hebrew history. It abounds in 
wild adventures, and feats of wonderful valor. We have followed the nation of slaves until we 
have seen them become a people in the land promised to their fathers. All Scripture is 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and for varied forms of instruction; but the period before us 
is disappointing as regards the moral and religious condition of Israel. It is, however, rich in 
varied interest, in romantic incidents, in rough heroism, and in the union of ancient manners 
with national evidences of true faith and religious devotion. It is also a period marked by 
tragical pathos and heroic deeds, as is no other period of Jewish history. Personal activity and 
individual daring, with corresponding craft, were necessary qualifications for office on the part 
of those leaders known as Judges. We pass at once into a realm where barbaric savagery 


1 Joshua xxiv, 26. 


2 Joshua xxiv, 29. 


3 See ‘Hours with the Bible,” II, pp. 433-435. 



412 


A LOW STANDARD OF MORALS. 


is common, and where the gentler virtues are rare. We are conscious of a great change from 
the calm majesty of Moses and Joshua to the reckless daring and turbulent authority of Gideon, 
Jephthah, and Samson. These men are great in a sort of barbaric chivalry as rulers, rather 
than as calm and dignified administrators of justice, as were Joshua and Moses. We have come 
into an atmosphere that is distinctly more human than divine. In some portions of the 
Hebrew writings the divine element so predominates that we almost forget that the actors and 
writers were men of like passions with ourselves; but in studying the period of the Judges we 
almost wonder that men of such earthly impulses and unholy passions could have been used by 
God as his instruments in carrying out high and holy designs. These leaders were often both 
barbarous and brutal. This book recalls us from the high ideals of a chosen people to the 
delinquencies, irregularities, and rugged wickedness of men and women who were of the earth 
and earthy. It is a part of the glory of divine revelation that it does not create or magnify the 
virtues of its heroes, and does not deny or minimize their vices. No part of the Bible gives so 
great pain as the Book of Judges. Idolatry, impurity, and cruelty abound; but the Bible 
nowhere sanctions any act of cruelty, treachery, or impurity. It merely states the facts, 
without comment, and leaves future generations to pass their own judgments. All admit that 
the moral tone of the time was bad, that the light was dim, that the standard was low. And 
yet men did not live up to this dim light, nor this low standard. The heroes of that day are 
not models for our day. They were ruthless chieftains, stern swordsmen, and rough rulers. 
Their very imperfections give the greater glory to the divine grace which could use them. 
One finds it difficult in reading this book to understand how such barbarous men could become 
the deliverers of the children of God. Over against the Book of J udges, as we shall see later, 
is the Book of Ruth. The one is all wildness and roughness, the other all sweetness, tender¬ 
ness, and beauty. We must not lay such undue emphasis, however, on the human element in 
this book as to neglect the divine purpose which underlies the history, and which controlled the 
events. In studying the book, as in studying the life of him who was, in the largest measure, 
the Word of God, we are to lay just emphasis alike on the divine and the human elements. 
God, if we may so say, did the best he could with the material in his hand. Often his laws 
were shaped to the exigencies of men’s hearts. God takes men where he finds them, and deals 
with them on the plane whereon they stand. His purpose is to lift them to higher levels, and 
to make them noble. Even the best men are but men at best. God’s chosen people as a whole 
were occasionally in rebellion against him; and even those who were chosen from the chosen 
people, as God’s agents and the leaders of their race, were wayward and rebellious at times to a 
startling degree. There is a wild freshness about this period which is full of danger, and at the 
same time full of promise; it suggests freedom from restraint, and also inspires the hope that 
under proper guidance it may become an element of vast blessing to the race whom God 
is training for his service. In this period we move amid mountain and woodland scenery ; we 
are thrilled by incidents of romance, and are inspired by evidences of chivalry. It has both its 
dark and its bright side. It is a time when liberty degenerates into license, and when freedom 
becomes violence and anarchy. In the atmosphere of this time, what is human too often 
becomes barbarous, savage, and even bestial. We have here no story of pastoral purity, of 
idyllic simplicity, or of personal righteousness; we have here no epic of knightly valor asso¬ 
ciated with personal purity, and no saintly bravery without its unsaintly and painfully human 
elements. Side by side, we find the pathos of tragedy and the fascination of romance. 1 

Attention has been frequently called to the vein of humor, and even of drollery, which 
marks portions of this period. The men of Dan appear before us with a twinkle in their eyes, 
and a smile on their lips as they ask their conundrums. Samson is a rollicking, joking, 
dashing giant and hero. He makes a joke when in the last terrible scene of his life; for he 


Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary. 



A PERIOD OF TRANSITION. 


413 


then prays to be avenged “ for one of my two eyes.” No fewer than four times does the 
historian remind us that “ in those days there was no king in Israel,” but “ every man did that 
which was right in his own eyes.” The result of this state of lawlessness was, as we are told 
frequently, that “ the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord.” We are then told, 
again and again, that “the children of Israel cried unto the Lord.” Here we have cause 
and effect; we have sin producing punishment, and punishment resulting in penitence, and 
penitence expressing itself in prayer, and prayer, earnestly offered, securing deliverance. We 
have in turn blessings leading to presumption, and presumption advancing to apostasy. There 
is thus here a regular cycle of cause and effect. We are in a period of transition. The 
restraining influences exercised by Moses and Joshua have ceased; and the authority later to 
be exercised by kings has not yet begun. The danger from hostile tribes has, in part, passed 
away, and the disintegrating tendency of peace without any controlling national bond, or 
religious principle, is fully manifested. There is danger, also, lest the conquered population 
shall make common cause against the invaders. These populations have never been fully 
expelled nor entirely subdued. They were to the Hebrews in the land what the Britons were 
to the invading Saxons, and what the Saxons later were to the Danes and to the Normans. 
These partially conquered tribes were biding their time and would some day mass their forces 
and perhaps conquer their conquerors. Nations outside of Palestine were also hostile to the 
Hebrews. There was danger that much of the work done by Joshua would be undone by these 
combined influences. Within were apostasy and division; without were seduction and hostility. 
At times there was danger lest the Israelites should be driven out of the Promised Land. 

But the change from a wandering to a settled life had been made; the children of God 
had become the repository of a new religion given amid cloud and flame on Mount Sinai. 
They had secured a foothold in the Promised Land. They had acquired familiarity with their 
new life, and they must cease to be herdsmen and become agriculturists. In this advance from 
a nomadic to a settled life, there necessarily was retrogression as well as progression. Human 
progress is not a steadily flowing river, but rather a tide that ebbs and flows; but on the whole 
there is progress in the right direction. The Hebrews had received a partial training, even 
while in the Wilderness, for their settled life in Palestine. Their long halts gave them oppor¬ 
tunity to cultivate fields, to sow seed, and to reap harvests. They were then in process of 
training for their great career. They had become already, to a large degree, an agricultural 
people. Nothing but the persecutions to which they have been so cruelly subjected, with a 
corresponding insecurity of property, have transformed the Jews of to-day into a mercantile 
rather than an agricultural race. The Hebrews in Palestine were ceasing to be a hermit 
nation, and were taking their place among the nations of the world. 

They were also to enter into certain commercial relations with the other nations who 
inhabited the seaboard of Palestine; these were especially the Phoenicians and Philistines. 
Tyre and Sidon were already strong and prosperous towns; and these and other towns were 
only too glad of the opportunity to do business with the Israelites. The Philistines were most 
hostile in their spirit, and less willing to enter into commercial relations. The Philistines had, 
themselves, at a very early day, been immigrants like the Israelites. They were probably 
descendants of Ham’s son Mizraim; and probably migrated into Canaan from Caphtor, which 
is variously understood to be Crete, Cyprus, or Egypt. Without doubt they were the Capli- 
torim who supplanted the Avim and other early settlers. The Philistines who formed treaties 
with Abraham and Isaac were a pastoral people, but with a king and warlike organizations. 
They were still, in the time of Judges, a warlike rather than a commercial people; and they 
still possessed a vigorous military organization. The five confederate cities of Philistia, Gaza, 
Askelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron, were sufficiently strong to dispossess Dan, to conquer 
Judah, and to make their power felt by other tribes as well. 


414 


INTERNAL DISSENSIONS—TENDENCY TO IDOLATRY. 


This condition of hostility, and the change from a nomadic to a settled life were among the 
forces which were controlling the children of Israel at this time. Unfortunately, they showed 
at times great rivalry among themselves. Deborah complains of the apathy of Reuben, Dan, 
and Asher during the oppression experienced by Zebulun and Naphtali. Judah and Ephraim 
are always more or less hostile. Judah is seldom mentioned, and the silence is suggestive of 
indifference to the welfare of the tribes as a whole, and of a selfish regard for its own interests. 
Only one, probably, of the many Judges belonged to the tribe of Judah — Othniel, the Ken- 
izzite, who was the first of the Judges. As a southern tribe, Judah had less need of these 
remarkable and providential deliverers. Although Judah did not entirely escape the oppres¬ 
sion of the Amorites and of the Philistines, still they were not so continually under the heel of 
oppression as were some of the other tribes. The fuller glory of Judah came in connection 
with the brilliant career of David. Ephraim lost no opportunity of asserting her superiority; 
and the seed was already sown which brought forth fruit in the subsequent division of the 
kingdom. The tribes east of the Jordan were not only separated from their brethren on the 
west, but were not even fully united among themselves. Reuben’s isolation was far from 
honorable, and the tribe finally sank into permanent obscurity. This tribe gave the people 
no judge, no hero, no prophet; and Deborah, with scorn, rebukes Reuben for indifference or 
cowardice. Gad and Manasseh had a more honorable record. We have not, therefore, a very 
hopeful picture of the tribes at this period. On the west bank we have Judah and Simeon in 
comparative isolation, but, because of purity and discipline, the strongest of the groups. But 
the remainder of the tribes we see disunited, and submitting with more or less grace to the 
superiority claimed by Ephraim. On the east bank Gad and half Manasseh are on fairly good 
terms with each other and with the western tribes, but separated by the Jordan from intimate 
fellowship; while Reuben, as we have seen, remains in ignoble seclusion. Fortunately for 
Israel their foes were also divided among themselves. The league hastily formed against 
Joshua came to naught, as we have already seen. A similar, fate awaited subsequent leagues 
formed against the Hebrews. The accounts of their attacks and their defeats in detail will 
come before us later. 

We have thus seen that the period of the Judges was one of liberty, degenerating into 
license. We have seen that the people were rapidly passing from a pastoral to an agricultural 
state. We have seen that, both inside and outside of Palestine, the Israelites were coming into 
closer contact with their heathen neighbors. These neighbors, while superior in culture, were 
vastly inferior in morality. We have seen that the tribes were falling apart into selfish groups, 
or equally selfish isolations, when the pressure of a common danger was removed ; and we have 
also seen that there was a strong tendency to apostasy from God, and to the adoption of the 
abominations of prevalent idolatries. 

The tendency toward idolatry was the saddest of all the drifts observed at this time. This 
tendency was held sharply in check while Israel wandered in the Wilderness; there, as has 
been well said, they lived in a religious hothouse. They did not breathe the common atmos¬ 
phere, but dwelt in a world of their own. Their religious faith was the result of spiritually 
favorable conditions. But without trial there can be no real virtue; mere innocence is not 
robust virtue. When the test came they were not equal to its severity; and when temptation 
surrounded them they threw aside former restraints and too often yielded to the fascinations of 
idolatry. Those who lived at a distance from the tabernacle at Shiloh might go up to it once a 
year for the most attractive of the feasts, that of the Tabernacles; but absent from the taber¬ 
nacle, the duties of religion were largely forgotten. The law was not read, religious ceremonies 
were not observed, and many grew up ignorant of the past glorious history, of the present 
important duty, and of the sublime future possibilities of the race. Superstitious observances 
soon crept into the worship of Jehovah. Images were introduced; God’s name and worship 


HISTORICAL ANALOGIES—BOOK OF JUDGES. 


415 


were profaned; and Jehovah only became one of many gods, and in some instances liis 
worship was entirely abandoned and that of Baal and Ashtoreth substituted. 1 

Israel thus experienced great dangers in mingling with the surrounding populations. 
Had Israel been true to God, the dark scenes in her history, at this time, would never have 
been enacted, and the record would be bright and beautiful. Israel was now planting the seed 
which was to bring forth in distant centuries her two captivities, with their painful experiences 
and enduring results. It is easy to trace the causes which led to these captivities, in the 
intercourse at this time with the Canaanites. 

Some writers have compared this period to the heroic age in Greece; and there are points 
of analogy between the two periods. There was in both cases an invasion of new territory, 
and in both, also, the bravery of heroes in resisting invaders and of invaders in seeking posses¬ 
sion of desirable dominion. There was in both the painful mingling of virtue and vice, of 
heroic self-sacrifice with savagery and sin; but in the case of the children of Israel there was 
a strain of heavenly music even amid the wildest and most sinful revelries. There was some 
consciousness of a divine mission even in the commission of sinful acts, and there was some 
reliance on God, even while there was a recklessness in evil. The conscience of Israel was at 
times active; and such a conscience the pagan heroes did not and could not possess. An 
analogy has also been found between this period and the age of Christian chivalry in connec¬ 
tion with the Crusades. This analogy is much more accurate; for over parts of this same 
territory in its later age went the crusaders to rescue the tomb of Christ from the hand of 
the infidel. These crusaders illustrated many of the qualities both of nobility and of baseness, 
found in the earlier period. They were at times brave and noble; at other times mean, selfish, 
abominable, and brutally cruel. There was thus a startling mixture of good and evil in both 
movements; often the evil triumphed, and the good was overthrown. But, even in their 
ignoble motives, there were times of high and noble purposes; and in both cases the invaders 
contributed directly or indirectly to the progress of the race. 

The writer of the Book of Judges is unknown. Some have ascribed it to Samuel; it may 
have been written by him or some other prophet who lived early in the reign of King Saul. 
The frequent expression “ in those days there was no king in Israel,” seems to imply that the 
book was written after the kingdom was established. It seems clear, also, that it was written 
before the kingdom fell to David, because we are told in the first chapter that “the Jebusites 
dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem, unto this day ”; but we know that one of 
the first acts of David was to expel the Jebusites from Jerusalem. The book traces the steps 
by which the people departed from God. It shows at the same time God’s patience with their 
wanderings, while he mingled long-suffering with timely chastisement. On four occasions the 
Angel-Jehovah, the Jesus of the Old Testament, appeared for the deliverance of the people. 2 
The chronology of the period is involved in obscurity. Clear marks of time are wanting; 
different writers vary in their estimate as to the number of years covered by the book. It is 
thus extremely difficult to arrive at the exact facts. Sometimes the narratives of the Judges 
run parallel to one another, and no great reliance can be placed upon the recurring numbers of 
twenty, forty, and eighty. The aggregate of the years of alternate oppressions and deliverance 
gives no satisfactory result. There are no quotations in the New Testament from the Book of 
Judges; but in Acts xiii, 20, and Hebrews xi, 32, there are references to the history narrated 
in the book; and in the Psalms and in the Prophets there are frequent references to the book. 

The deliverers, who were called Judges, are an interesting class of men. They were a very 
different class of men from the ordinary administrators of justice among the Hebrews. They 
were specially raised up by God to deliver his people from powerful foes. Their rank was not 
hereditary, and the selection of Judges was not limited to any one tribe. They were the unique 


1 See Introduction in “ Pulpit Commentary,” p. 14. 


2 Judges ii, 1, v, 23, vi, 11, xiii, 3. 



416 


DIGNITY AND PROWESS OF THE JUDGES. 




rulers of Israel during the theocracy from Joshua to Saul. The name by which they are 
called, “Shophetim,” is derived from a word signifying “to judge.” This word bears a close 
resemblance to that which designates the governors or Suffetes of the Carthaginians, a colony of 
the Tyrians, who carried the name from Phoenicia. Their rulers, in the time of the Punic 
War, Livy, the Roman historian, named Suffetes. The Hebrew Shophetim were military 
dictators rather than regularly constituted magistrates. Their authority was extraordinary 
and exceptional, growing out of the emergencies of their time, reminding us of that of the 
Roman dictators, as it was often military rather than judicial. Eli and Samuel were excep¬ 
tions, they being only civil rulers. The Judges have been not inaptly compared to Arab 
Sheiks, or Indian Sachems. They were not kings, for Jehovah was King; neither were they 
heads of tribes. In some features of their work they remind us of the chieftains of the Scotch 
Highlanders and of the heads of clans in the very early days of Russian history. They wore 
no badges of office, had no salaries, and their rule was not hereditary. They were to be 
reformers in peace and leaders of armies in war. We have already seen that the Hebrew 
people were semi-barbarians, and in this lawless and anarchistic period, they needed rulers of 
exceptional character and authority. These Judges exercised their authority within the limits 
of their own tribes. The case of Deborah may be an exception, as we are told that she sat 
under her palm tree and judged the tribes of Israel. 1 But even in her gallant enterprise to 
break the organized confederacy of the Canaanites, some of the tribes took no part and did not 
apparently recognize her authority. The Judges were of different tribes and came forward as 
the necessities of the hour demanded. The dignity of the Judge was for life; but the succes¬ 
sion was irregular. There were periods during which the people were without rulers; and long 
periods of foreign oppression occurred while the Hebrews groaned without deliverers. God 
sometimes, in marked ways, called men to the office of Judge; but the people usually chose, 
under providential guidance, the man most likely to lead them successfully against the common 
enemy. Fifteen Judges are named during a period some time after Joshua to the coronation 
of Saul. Othniel, the first of the number, was probably of the great tribe of Judah. He 
delivered the people from the tyranny of the king of Mesopotamia, and he ruled in peace 
for forty years. Shamgar’s tribe is uncertain. Ehud was of the tribe of Benjamin. He 
delivered Israel from the Moabites, by slaying Eglon, their king, at Jericho, and then raising 
an army and defeating the foe in battle. Deborah and Barak were of the great northern 
tribe of Ephraim. Gideon was of Manasseh. Tola of Issachar; Jair and Jephthah of the 
transjordanic region. Elon was of Zebulun. Samson was of Dan, and his enemies were the 
Philistines on the southwestern frontier. 

These were rough times in the history of Israel. One cannot help wondering what the 
condition of things would have been if Israel had not yielded to the idolatry of surrounding 
nations, but had remained loyal to Jehovah, establishing a strong federal government with its 
center the Sanctuary of Jehovah. We should then have had a united people instead of an 
assemblage of jealous and sometimes hostile tribes. Then the whole land might have come into 
the possession of Israel; then no enemies of alien blood and faith would have remained within 
their borders; then they had gone on conquering and to conquer, with God as their Leader, 
and with his service as their dominant motive. 


Judges iv, 5. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE FIFTEEN JUDGES. 


"VITE have seen that, after the death of Joshua and the elders, there was a succession of Judges 
’ ' who exercised authority over the nation. Some of these Judges, however, were placed 
over only a portion of the nation. There were, as already stated, fifteen of them in all. In the 
Book of Judges twelve of them are named. Abimelech is not mentioned there, and the names 
of Eli and Samuel are omitted as they are recorded in the First Book of Samuel. With the 
exception of Eli, and possibly Samuel, none of them were taken from the tribe of Levi, and no 
notice is taken of any military service performed by Tola, Ibzan, Elon, or Abdon. During the 
time that they filled this office, the land seems to have enjoyed a condition of comparative peace. 
Jephtliah and the three Judges who succeeded him seem to have limited their authority to 
northeastern Israel, beyond the Jordan, while the scene of Samson’s exploits was southwestern 
Israel. Some have supposed that he was contemporary with Eli who judged Israel at Shiloh. 
These Judges did not constitute an organic part of the government; their authority was exer¬ 
cised by the common consent of the people. The general affairs of the several tribes were 
managed by their elders, partly according to rules contained in the Mosaic law, but still more 
largely according to various ancient usages. The tribes were not bound by any permanent 
civil head; they, therefore, acted each one by its own decision, or a few in concert, and often 
independently of the nation as a whole. 

It may be well, at this point, to have a definite statement regarding the order of the succes¬ 
sion of these Judges, together with the length of service of each one. The dignity was conferred 
upon the Judges for life. There were, however, periods when there were no Judges, and the 
commonwealth was without appointed rulers. There being no central government, each tribe 
acted for itself, and, indeed, “ every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” 1 East of 
the Jordan, Eliud, Jephthah, Elon, and Jair delivered the people from foreign foes and governed 
the tribes. Barak and Tola governed the northern tribes, Abdon the central, and Ibzan and 
Samson the southern. These Judges exercised an authority but little inferior to that of kings. 
They were the protectors of the people, the defenders of religion, the avengers of crime, and 
particularly the opponents of idolatry. They received no salary for their service and they lived 
without the splendor of palaces, equipages, or attendants. We give the names of the Judges 
and the time of their service, with the length of service of each, as far as these facts can be 
discovered in the mass of vague and sometimes contradictory statements accessible: 


Years. 

Othuiel.. 40 

Ehud. 80 

Shamgar.unknown 

Deborah and Barak. 40 

Gideon. 40 

Abimelech. 3 

Tola. 23 


Jephthah. 6 

Ibzan. 7 

Elon. 10 

Abdon. 8 

Samson. 20 

Eli . 40 


Samuel, about 12 


According to this the period from Othniel to Saul, including the years of oppression, is about 
490 years. But according to other chronologies it is only about 310 years, of which period 111 


Judges xvii, 6. 


417 

















418 


THE JUDGES—MESOPOTAMIAN INVASION. 


were under the oppression of foreign foes. But, doubtless, some of these periods overlap eaeh 
other, and perhaps it is impossible to he certain regarding the length of the period, or to recon¬ 
cile the statements in different books of the Old and New Testaments. Doubtless, there are 
facts with which we are not familiar, which, if known, would make all entirely clear. We are 
also able to give a tentative table of oppressors and deliverers : 


OPPRESSORS. Years. DELIVERERS. 

1. Mesopotamians. 8 Othniel. 

2. Moabites. 18 Ehud. 

3. North Canaanites. 20 Deborah and Barak. 

4. Midianites. 7 Gideon. 

5. Ammonites. 18 Jephthah. 

6. Philistines. 40 Samson. 


All are agreed that the time from the death of Joshua to the election of Saul was at least a 
period over 400 years, although the exact time is variously estimated by different authorities. 1 
The recollection of the wonderful story of God’s deliverance from Egypt, and of his protection 
during the Exodus and the sojourn in the Wilderness, was never effaced from the minds of the 
people of Israel. Although they often wandered far from God, they still retained memories of 
these remarkable displays of power, for their protection, and for the destruction of their foes. 
They were still surrounded by warlike neighbors, anxious to reconquer the fair land; and 
there was constant need of the heroic men raised up by God to be the deliverers of Israel. The 
Phoenicians and other Canaanites, it was to be expected, would be in a state of constant 
rebellion against the victorious invaders; but had the tribes remained united under brave 
leaders, they would have driven out their foes and have possessed the land in peace. But with 
the death of Joshua and the dispersion of the tribes to their respective territories, the golden 
opportunity was lost forever. The Phoenicians, in Josliua’s days, still paid tribute to Egypt as 
they had done for 400 years previous; and Egypt, in turn, gave the Phoenicians great trading 
advantages. The flag of the Phoenicians, it is said, waved at once in Britain and in the Indian 
Ocean, they having made an extensive immigration from Palestine to escape the sword of 
Joshua. The Israelites must long have coveted the wealth of Sidon and other seaport towns; 
but they seemed unable to secure their possession. The long spears and the terrible iron 
chariots of the lowland races were too much for the valor of Israel. But their own hills 
commanded the passes by which commerce flowed into Egypt, Arabia, Babylon, and Assyria. 

The first cry of distress, however, came to Israel from new foes. An invader from the 
distant banks of the Euphrates spread consternation through Israel. A Mesopotamian king, 
Chushan-Nishathaim, invaded the land, and for eight weary years kept Israel under the yoke 
of bondage. National life and primitive faith had largely disappeared in Israel. The people 
intermarried with the remnants of the heathen races remaining in the land, and too often 
joined with them in the worship of Baal together with that of Jehovah, or in the worship of 
Baal to the exclusion of that of Jehovah. Of this invader, the only one from the far East 
during the period covered by this book, we know but little. Trouble brought forth its proper 
fruits in Israel by leading the sufferers back to the God of their fathers. God raised up for 
them, when they honored his covenant and experienced a revival of faith, Othniel — “ the Lion 
of God.” He was a powerful prince or lion of the tribe of Judah. He drove the oppressors 
from the district in which he ruled, and forty years of peace were secured by his bravery and 
loyalty to God and Israel. During his administration Israel was true to God; but after his 
death the people fell back into their old sins, and again suffered the punishment of another 
bondage. Othniel was probably the only Judge connected with the tribe of Judah. He is first 


1 Acts xiii, 20. 









EXPULSION OF THE MOABITES. 


419 


mentioned on the occasion of the taking of Kirjath-sepher, “ the town of the book,” or Debir, 
as it was afterward called. This town was in the mountainous territory about twelve miles 
southwest of Hebron within the border of Judea, and was assigned to Caleb, the Kenizzite. 
As we have seen, Caleb promised to give his daughter Achsah to him who should capture the 
city. 1 Otliniel was the victor, and with the promised bride he received, in addition to her 
previous dowry, the upper and nether springs in the neighborhood. When the spirit of the 
Lord came upon Othniel victory over this foe was secured, and Israel had rest for forty years. 

We are now brought into contact with a new enemy, the king of Moab, whose name was 
Eglon, meaning “ the bullock.” This was a name of contempt which was probably given him 
by Israel. Associated with him were the Ammonites and Amalekites. With their help he 
smote Israel, and secured possession of Jericho, which he made his seat of government. For 
eighteen years he exercised authority over the people. Once more Israel was brought into a 
condition of penitence, once more cried unto the Lord, and once more secured deliverance. 
These Ammonites and Amalekites were the old enemies of Israel. They overpowered Benja¬ 
min, doubtless after a bitter struggle, and took Jericho, which had been partially rebuilt, 
possibly on another site. The years of Eglon’s possession were years of great oppression. 
Then arose Ehud. He was of the tribe of Benjamin, and was a young man of more wiliness 
than honor. Ehud was chosen to superintend the payment at Jericho of the tribute of his 
people; but he prepared himself for a different service. Hiding his dagger, a cubit long, on 
his right thigh under his mantle, in which position his rank entitled him to wear it, he deter¬ 
mined to end the king’s life. The tribute was paid to the king in person, and an opportunity 
was thus afforded Ehud to notice the details of the house and all its domestic arrangements. 
The tribute bearer was dismissed to his home; he then went to the graven images which were 
set up at Gilgal, returned soon to Eglon, sending him a message of his desire to see him. The 
king commanded silence, and all withdrew. He was in his summer apartment on the roof of 
the house for coolness, and there he awaited Ehud’s communication. Ehud intimated that his 
message was from God. Eglon, arose, perhaps to defend himself, or perhaps in a spirit of 
reverence for the God of the Hebrews. He was thus exposed to the blow of the dexterous 
Ehud, who, being left-handed like many of his tribe, snatched from under his cloak the dagger, 
and plunged it to the hilt in Eglon’s body. 2 After the assassination, Ehud hastily passed 
through the anteroom, locked the doors and quickly and quietly left without exciting suspi¬ 
cion. Not until some time later did the servants of the king learn of his sad fate. Ehud, in 
the meantime, had escaped to the woody slopes in the southern part of the hill country of 
Ephraim. With his trumpet he summoned the men of war, and soon a multitude of armed 
men were about him. Thus supported he rushed to the fords of the Jordan, 3 and soon 10,000 
men of valor fell before his fierce attack; 4 being intercepted at the fords of the Jordan, they 
were slain to a man. The enemy was thus slaughtered or driven from the land and eighty 
years of peace followed. 5 

We now come to the Philistines who made the next inroad on Israel. They are to appear 
often in the history from this time onward. They were long the bitter foes of Israel; yet it is 
a curious fact, bitter though their enmity to Israel was, that their name is forever associated 
with the promised land, for the word Palestine is only another form of the name Philistia. 
They went from the maritime plains to make their raids into the Hebrew uplands. Their name 
from this time on, for many years, was the synonym of all that was cruel in opposition to 
Israel, and all that roused Israel to oppose their oppressors. Their attack brought into the 
history one of the strongest characters of this unique period; for the Philistine invasion brings 
before us the huge warrior Shamgar, with his great ox-goad. He was the son of Anath, and 

1 Joshua XV, 17 ; Judges i, 13, iii, 9,10. Judges iii, 15-22. 3 Judges iii, 26-28. 4 Judges iii, 29. 

5 Judges iii, 30. 

29 



420 


SHAMGAR—DEBORAH. 


was the third Judge of Israel. 1 His judgeship began in a time of great insecurity and distress. 
The highways became impassable. 3 The people were obliged to creep ajbout in the night, 
avoiding the beaten paths and the open country. They dared not partake of the water from the 
public wells lest the water might be poisoned, and at times they could not even approach the 
wells, as the enemy had made them inaccessible. The tributary Canaanites were in league 
with their independent kinsmen, the Philistines. The people of Israel were finally obliged to 
hide themselves in the mountains. It would seem that their arms were taken from them in 
harmony with the policy clearly adopted later by the same people. The whole nation was 
in alarm and despair. Then arose the rough and heroic Shamgar. He seems to have been 
plowing when the Philistines made their approach. He had no time to get better weapons, if 
such weapons were to be had. The ox-goad, however, in the hand of a man with strong arms 
and brave heart, was a powerful weapon. It was often a shaft eight feet long and six inches in 
circumference at the larger end. On the one end was a sharp prickle to keep the oxen in 
motion, and on the other end was a paddle used to remove from the plow the clay which 
naturally clung to it. With this weapon he made his desperate assault, and slew 600 of 
the Philistines. 3 Perhaps we are not to understand that he slew them with his own hand, but 
rather that he put himself at the head of a band of peasants, also armed with ox-goads. It is 
still common to ascribe to a leader the victories achieved by his followers. This remarkable 
victory struck terror into the hearts of the Canaanites and Philistines, and gave Israel at least a 
temporary respite. This deliverance could not, in the nature of the case, be permanent. We 
are not surprised, therefore, to learn that the country continued still to be oppressed until after 
the deliverance which resulted from Deborah’s great victory. Israel was her own greatest 
enemy. She constantly tended toward the idolatrous practices of the surrounding tribes; she 
constantly relapsed into the habits of her heathen neighbors, and so brought upon herself the 
displeasure of Jehovah. 

We now enter upon one of the most famous of the many deliverances of Israel. A 
formidable confederacy was formed by Jabin, a northern king of the Canaanites. 4 He subdued 
God’s disobedient people, and for twenty years held them in apparently hopeless bondage. The 
years of peace mentioned often are limited only to certain portions of the country, while in 
other portions the oppressor was present and the people were crushed under his iron heel. 
Jabin’s military power was great; his general, Sisera, commanded 900 war chariots, 5 and Israel 
did not have even one. He, or his allies, held strong fortresses at Taanach, and Megiddo, and 
Beth-shean, on the south of Esdraelon, and these strongholds prevented the southern tribes 
from giving help to their brethren in the north in their great distress. 6 The whole country was 
reduced to a sad state of despair; all forms of trade practically ceased, and again the people hid 
themselves in mountains and valleys, or behind the strong walls of their towns. Elders and 
people alike lost heart and hope, and no one seemed called of God or man to be the deliverer in 
this trying hour. The population seemed utterly paralyzed in the presence of the overwhelming 
numbers and superior equipments of the Canaanites. There was scarcely a spear, shield 
or sword to be found among the 40,000 men. 7 At this critical hour a woman came forward to 
be the deliverer of the people. She was the Joan of Arc of that early day. A lofty patriotism 
and an unquenchable religious enthusiasm filled her soul. She pondered long over the misfor¬ 
tunes of her people, and while she mused the fire burned in her brave heart. Then, at last, her 
heroic soul burst into a flame of zeal for the overthrow of Israel’s foes. This brave woman’s 
name was Deborah. The word means “ the bee,” and she certainly was worthy of her name in 
her power to give a sting to the foes and honey to the friends of Israel. She was a prophetess, 
and was used by God as his instrument to rouse the depressed nation and to strike the proud 

1 Judges iii, 31. 2 Judges v, 6. * Judges iii, 31. 4 Judges iv, 2. 5 Judges iv, 3. 

6 Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 466. 7 Judges v, 8. 




MOUNT TABOR FROM PLAIN OB ESDRAELON. 


























422 


THE SUMMONS OF PATRIOTISM. 


enemy. No narrow tribal loyalty bounded lier national faith, hope, and love. For a while she 
lived in the south in the hills of Ephraim between Hamah and Bethel. She knew of the 
sorrows of the northern tribes and sympathized with them with a tenderness as marked as her 
bravery was great. She was the wife of Lapidoth, and under her solitary palm tree she judged 
Israel. 1 She sent for Barak, or Barca—“the thunderbolt,” or “lightning”—and directed him 
to attack Sisera, assuring him of victory. He, however, refused to make the attempt unless she 
accompanied him in the expedition; he seemed to be much less resolute and heroic than 
Deborah. 2 Bravely she went forward, but faithfully and somewhat sarcastically she reminded 
him that the expedition would be victorious, but the glory would be a woman’s and not a man’s. 
It is interesting to know that the palm tree under which she judged was near the place where 
the nurse of Rebekali, another and earlier Deborah, was buried under an oak. Beautiful is it 
that that early record, in which there is scarcely found a place for the deeds and graves of 
statesmen and kings, gives mention of the burial of the nurse of Rebekah. Barak was a 
northern warrior of the tribe of Naphtali which was near to the fortress of King Jabin, and 
which suffered much at his hand. To Barak she gave the command of the God of Israel that he 
should lead an army of patriots against the hosts of Sisera. Her presence roused Zebulun and 
Naphtali to join the conquering army; but Dan and Asher, on the seashore, failed to respond 
to her stirring summons. Reuben came not up to the help of the Lord and Deborah and Barak 
against the mighty foe. The dwellers in Meroz, a town at the head of the pass to Beth-shean, 
did not listen to the divine voice, and have been stigmatized forever on the page of the inspired 
history. 3 Behold Barak with his 10,000 infantry, marching to the battle! 4 He has already 
gained a reputation for bravery and loyalty, as his name clearly shows. Already his fame has 
reached the distant confines of Benjamin. Messages were sent far and near, and 10,000 men 
gathered from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun to the gathering-place at Tabor. Issachar 
sent bands of volunteers; and the Ephraimites came from their hills, and the valiant sons 
of Benjamin, the most warlike of the tribes, skilled in the bow and famous with the sling, 5 
using either the right hand or the left with equal skill, came to do battle for God and Israel. 
Manasseh, east and west of the Jordan, sent loyal men and brave chiefs. For the first time 
since the early days of Joshua, the national spirit had been roused to a high pitch of patriotism 
and enthusiasm. The refusal of Meroz to participate in the stirring scenes in this historic hour 
brought down a curse which seems to have resulted in the destruction of her homes, if not the 
extermination of her people. Unfortunately the discussion by the brooks of Reuben ended in 
its clans leaving their brethren to fight unaided, while they remained among their hills and 
pastures. Gad also refused to come. Dan would rather remain, with cowardly indifference, 
with his boats at Joppa and Asher in the bays of Acre. 6 The great tribe of Judah, and 
the tribe of Simeon seem to have kept aloof, jealousy of Ephraim probably being the cause. 
All honor to Zebulun, who busily and bravely enrolled her volunteers! All honor to 
Naphtali, dwelling among her hills! These tribes imperiled their lives; these tribes won 
immortal victory. 

Up the sides of Mount Tabor, rising 1,500 feet from the plain of Esdraelon, the hosts of 
Israel climb. On its top, which is treeless and which forms a comparatively level circuit of 
half an hour’s walk, they meet in battle array. 7 No more advantageous location could have 
been chosen; for here Israel could not be attacked by the chariots of the Canaanites, and had, 
moreover, a lofty watchtower from whose summit all the movements of the Canaanites could 
easily be seen. Sisera knew that the tribes of Israel were assembling for battle. With him as 
allies were the Kenites, who, though now on terms of peace with Jabin, had hitherto been 
frequently friendly with Israel. This Arab tribe was in a sense the kinsmen of Israel, because 

1 Judges iv, 4, 5. 2 Judges iv, 6-9. 3 Judges v, 23. 4 Judges iv, 10. 5 Judges xx, 16. 6 Geikie, “ Hours 

with the Bible,” II, p. 470. 7 Geikie, “Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 472. See Stanley, and Smith’s “Bible Dictionary.” 



TRIUMPH OF BARAK. 


423 


of the marriage of Moses to the daughter of Jethro, one of their sheiks. But now they 
betrayed Israel, and soon the wife of their chief was to betray Israel’s arch enemy. The word 
Sisera means “ the Leader.” He was brave and heroic, and worthy of a better cause than that 
in which he was engaged. He collected his forces in Esdraelon ; for he needed the open space 
which this plain afforded for the movements of his 900 chariots. His headquarters were at 
Taanacli, a Canaanitish town and fortress on the southwestern side of the plain, on a spur of 
the Carmel range, and “now clad with olive trees and marked by a stone village still called 
Taanacli.” To the northeast, sixteen miles away, rose Tabor. Its top was visible above the 
hills of Little Hermon. This plain, many writers have reminded us, has in all ages been the 
battlefield of Palestine. It lies north of the range of Carmel and the mountains of Samaria. 
It is twenty miles long from east to west, and ten to twelve in width. The Bay of Acre consti¬ 
tutes its western boundary, and the mountains of Gilboa, Little Hermon, and Tabor define its 
eastern boundary. It also sends arms down to the valley of the Jordan. It presents an 
undulating surface of great beauty and equal fertility, with an average level of 400 feet above 
the sea. For thousands of years it has been both the highway of travel and the battlefield of 
nations. The history of what has occurred on this plain would be, in no small sense, the 
history of the world. Perhaps no territory of the same size under the heavens has so often 
been fattened by the blood of the slain of so many nations. Here armies in many wars have 
encamped. Here fought Thothmes III.; here Bameses II., and Raineses III. Here Pharaoh- 
Necho won the sad battle of Megiddo in which the beautiful King Josiah was slain, and so 
terrible was the slaughter of this great battle that the prophetic conflict mentioned in the 
Book of Revelation is called, because of the name Megiddo, “Armageddon.” 1 Here have 
fought, in turn, Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Arabs, Jews, Gentiles, Saracens, Turks, Crusa¬ 
ders, Druses, and French. On this historic plain they pitched their tents, and their banners 
were moistened with the dews of Hermon and Tabor. Napoleon Bonaparte, on his disastrous 
march from Egypt into Syria, amid all his experiences'of the horrors of battlefields, was 
touched by the tender memories which came to him of Tabor and Christ, while marching or 
camping on this plain. In the vicinity, on the mountains of Gilboa, the fierce battles were 
fought in which Saul and Jonathan so tragically perished. 

The signal for the fierce attack was given by the brave Deborah. Calling to Barak she 
said, “Up! this, this and no other is the day!” 2 Her stirring words met with an instant 
response. Barak took the field with his 10,000 infantry. The ill-armed host bravely poured 
down from the security of the mountains and rushed upon the chariots of the enemy drawn up 
in the terrible plain. A terrible storm of hail and sleet from the east burst over the plain, 
beating on the backs of the Hebrews and in the faces of the Canaanites. “ The stars in their 
courses fought against Sisera; ” 3 the rain descended in torrents, the wind blew with fury, and 
the flood came with resistless might. The deep red soil became a quagmire in which the 
chariots sunk, unable to move. The water-courses which had been dry were *now filled with 
rushing torrents, and in the terrible confusion the Canaanites were routed, overwhelmed, and 
destroyed with terrible slaughter. 4 The marshy ground, and the swelling of the river Kishon, 
were divine instruments to punish the foes of Israel and of Israel’s God. Sisera leaped from 
his chariot and fled for his life to the northeast, among the slopes of Tabor. 5 He fled from 
death on the field of battle to be murdered in his sleep, by the Kenite woman in whose tent he 
sought food and repose. We follow the flying general as he hastens for his life over the plains. 
The tents of the Arabs are to-day much as they were in that day; they are large and held up 
by nine poles on which rest the coverings of camel’s-hair cloth, or the hides of oxen. The 
ropes were fixed to pegs driven into the earth by a huge wooden mallet. 6 The tent is divided 

1 Geikie, “Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 473. 2 Judges iv, 14. 3 Judges v, 20. ‘Judges v, 21. 

5 Judges iv, 15. 6 See Geikie, “Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 475. 



424 


S1SERA MURDERED—SONG OF DEBORAH. 


into a part on the left for the men, and the part on the right forming the chamber for the 
women. The bed is only a mat on the ground, and the cloak worn by day serves as a cover by 
night. In the chamber for women are gathered the cooking utensils, the water skins, the milk, 
and the butter. Such, probably, was the tent of Heber at this time. At its entrance Sisera in 
his haste found Jael, the wife of the sheik, and, as there was peace between this Kenite tribe 
and Jabin, he asked for shelter. Graciously, but treacherously, she received him. What her 
purpose at the first was we cannot tell; but her subsequent acts indicated her determination to 
betray her guest. She brought him a preparation of curdled milk called “lebben,” which, 
while refreshing to the weary traveler, tends soon to produce deep sleep. 1 Instead of giving 
him the water for which he asked, Jael brought him the lebben in a special dish. 2 Probably 
she knew the effect which it would induce. The wearied man, broken in spirit because of 
his defeat, eagerly partakes of the welcome beverage. Soon he is wrapped in deepest slumber, 
feeling perfectly safe in the tent of Heber. Carefully Jael covers him with a cloak. It is a 
thrilling moment in her life! Shall she violate her repeated assurances of Arab hospitality ? 
Her tribe is now an ally of the host of Jabin; but she cannot forget that Israel is a race of 
her own blood. Strange thoughts come to her as she gazes on the sleeping Sisera, the foe of 
Israel now so unconscious and helpless. Shall she strike a deadly blow and deliver Israel from 
the oppressor ? See her silently, restlessly moving about her tent! Great thoughts, cruel 
thoughts, murderous thoughts, but, withal, patriotic thoughts, stir her soul. Now she takes up 
one of the tent pegs, and now with mallet in hand—the mallet used to drive the pegs into the 
ground.when the tents are erected—she stealthily creeps to the side of the sleeping general. 
She lifts the mallet with one hand, and holds the peg with the other just above his temple. 
What a moment in a woman’s life! Down comes the heavy mallet with a crushing blow, and 
through the temples of the sleeping man the tent pin is driven with such force that it pierces 
the ground on which the unconscious victim is lying! Convulsively he leaps, violently he 
groans in agony; a moment more and all is over, and now lifeless he lies in the tent in which 
he sought food and shelter. See her standing over him as he sinks dying, and then as he lies 
dead! 3 

The results of this battle were immediately great and far-reaching. The Israelites learned 
a lesson of national union; a lesson which they never fully forgot in their subsequent history. 
The Canaanites learned memorable lessons from the heroic courage of Israel, and the resistless 
might of Israel’s God. This was the first great victory which Israel had achieved since the 
days of Joshua. With a handful of men and God on their side, they overcame the mighty 
hosts of trained warriors. They saw that their national humiliation was because of their 
neglect of religious duty; they could not forget the lesson, that when they abandoned their 
idolatry they secured the favor of God, and, at the same time, found national deliverance. 

Deborah was the possessor of poetic genius, as truly as of martial valor and national 
loyalty. On this grand occasion she embodied her patriotic thoughts in rhythmic verse which 
delighted the hearts of Israel then, and which still sings in glowing notes on the page of sacred 
history. Her song is one of wonderful poetic fire; it is a lyric which only a great soul, under 
the inspiration of a great occasion, could sing. It inspired the hearts of all the tribes, and gave 
them hope for national unity and glory. No wonder that Deborah secured wide and enduring 
fame for wisdom and bravery; and no wonder that she became the center of moral and judicial 
power over the people whom she had so triumphantly delivered. Joyously did the children of 
Israel come up to her for judgment. It is an interesting fact that this “ Song of Deborah ” is 
the only example of the outpouring of a poetic and prophetic soul recorded in the sacred 
history from the death of Moses to the times of Hannah and Samuel. This glorious song gives 
God the praise for the victory achieved; this thought is, indeed, its keynote from its beginning 


1 See authorities referred to by Geikie, “Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 475. 


2 Judges v, 25. 


• Judges v, 26, 27. 



ERA OF PEACE —ANOTHER CANAANITE WAR. 


425 


to its close. No one can read a literal version of the lyric without appreciating its poetic 
genius, its patriotic spirit, and its divine inspiration. Other nations have given the world 
great women in time ot great need, and in the history of other nations, also, thunder and rain, 
lightning and hail have contributed to the defeat of enemies and to the triumph of national 
valor; but perhaps in no nation was there a braver leader among women than Deborah, the 
mother in Israel, and perhaps in no nation did patriotic valor and divine benediction more 
fully unite with the stars in their courses in opposing the enemy and in securing victory for 
the national cause. 

No one can give unqualified praise to Jael for her violation of Arabian hospitality, in the 
treacherous murder ot which she was guilty. But we must not judge the acts of that rude 
time by the standard of morality established by Jesus Christ, and observed, partially at least, 
even in warfare by civilized nations in modern times. Jael thought only of the relation of this 
cruel deed to the freedom ot the people whose blood flowed in her own veins. All of us, 
however, are conscious of the stirring sentiment evoked by the closing words of Deborah’s 
magnificent song: “So perish all thy enemies, O Jehovah ; but they that love thee are as the 
sun, when he goes forth in his might." 1 So the land had rest for forty years. 


CHAPTER VIII. 

GIDEON, “FAINT, YET PURSUING.” 

\ FTER the great victory won by Deborah and Barak over Sisera, forty years of peace 
ensued. This was a welcome repose after a time of great national excitement. Peace 
was necessary to the development of this new territory, and to the stability and prosperity of' 
the people. They were now more fully united as a nation than they had been since the days 
of Joshua. War against foreign foes is often necessary to prevent the fomenting of dissension 
on domestic soil. Many a ruler in modern times has favored a foreign war in order to prevent 
a civil uprising. This condition of things often will explain the declaration of foreign war in 
European countries. Indeed, the war now (1895) raging between China and Japan is doing 
much to unify the latter country, and perhaps to prevent outbreaks against the government in 
the former. The victory over Sisera left the people of Israel comparatively united, heartily 
enthusiastic, and more generally loyal to God and country than they had been for many years. 
But now, at the end of the period named, new enemies arose — enemies who were fierce and 
terrible, wild hordes from the desert. They were also old foes of Israel, foes whom Israel had 
fought at Sinai, foes who defeated Israel at Hormah, when they first attempted to enter Pales¬ 
tine, and foes whose land in central Canaan Ephraim claimed as her own. These were the 
Midianites, Amalekites, and other nomadic tribes, known as the sons of the East. It is difficult 
for us to be sure of our dates while stating the incidents recorded in the Book of Judges. As 
we have before intimated, some of the events were probably contemporaneous; but it seems 
quite certain that the rise of Gideon, the greatest of all the Judges, belonged to a period very 
much later than that of Deborah. Unfortunately, the very blessings of providence in the 
peace and prosperity which Israel had enjoyed after Deborah’s victorv were misused so as to 

1 Judges v, 31. 

See the graphic account of this battle by Stanley; especially his reference to battles, ancient and modern, when the 
stars fought in their courses. The translation given by him may well be compared with that given by Dean Milman and by 
I>r. Geikie. See, also, the discriminating and eloquent comments on the battle and the slaughter of Sisera in the “ Bible for 
Learners,” by Oort, Hooykaas and Kuenen, Volume I, pages 369-75. 




426 


THE MIDIANITE INCURSION. 


lower the moral tone of the people. All blessings are closely akin to curses. Privileges unused 
become evils of an exaggerated character. The tribes forgot the abhorrence of idolatry which 
Deborah had cherished and manifested. Once more they became indifferent to their national 
interests, and to the claims of God, their true king; and so they became the easy prey of 
vigorous foes ambitious of conquest. These tribes of Israel once more repeat their too familiar 
history of disobedience and consequent punishment; then of penitence toward God and deliver¬ 
ance wrought by God. As a scourge for the punishment of his people, God used these wild 
sons of the East. The home of these Arab tribes had been in the east and south of Pales¬ 
tine ; they were Midianites who had gradually spread northward from the Peninsula of Sinai. 
The rich plains and valleys of Palestine had always possessed peculiar attractions to these chil¬ 
dren of the desert; and they now swept with resistless power over large parts of the land. 
They banded together in a host of more than 120,000 men, capable of bearing arms. 1 Passing 
the fords of the Jordan with households and herds, they invaded Palestine, so that their coming 
was compared to a flight of locusts, both in numbers and in destructiveness. They pitched their 
tents and fed their camels in the rich cornfields of Israel. The people were reduced to the most 
general and humiliating servitude ever experienced by Israel. They were obliged to flee to the 
mountains and to hide themselves in obscure caves. 2 All over the land the soil remained uncul¬ 
tivated, the cattle were neglected or destroyed, a grievous famine ensued, and disease stalked 
through the land. The inroads of these invaders were thus on a gigantic scale; and they were 
repeated summer after summer. Wherever grain was growing it was trampled under foot or 
eaten by flocks and camels. Crops that were threshed were carried off, as were also sheep, 
oxen, and asses wherever these marauders could find them in mountain, valley, or plain. Two 
emirs, Zebah, “the man-killer,” and Zalmunna, “the pitiless,” with two subordinate chiefs, 
Oreb, “the Raven,” and Zeeb, “the Wolf,” came arrayed in scarlet cloaks 3 with chains of 
gold and crescent shaped ornaments adorning their camels and their own persons. A most 
vivid picture is given in the Book of Judges of the dazzling splendor of these primitive chiefs, 
as well as of the gorgeous raiment, ear and nose jewels, of their wives and daughters. 4 They 
came up from the depths of the Jordan valley, past the meadows of Beth-shean and finally 
pitched their tents on the east end of the great plain of Esdraelon. Dr. Geikie quotes Leslie 
Porter as having seen a similar host, though on a smaller scale, in the spring of 1857, when 
the Bedouin Sheik, Akeil Agha, assembled his men in Esdraelon to divide the plunder secured 
in the massacre of the Kurds at Hattin. He represents them as spreading over the plain, 
countless as locusts, and their camels like the sand on the seashore for number; and, as he 
gazed on the fierce crowds of this disorderly army, he was reminded of the great invasion of 
the Midianites in the days of Gideon. 5 

Israel was finally led, in her terrible distress, to call upon God for succor. The people 
had long refused to listen to the voice of prophets, urging them penitently to return to God and 
so avert the terrible calamity from which they were suffering. When the tale of bricks was 
doubled, then was Moses born; when the knell of liberty was sounding, the trumpet of hope 
was heard; so once more man’s necessity was God’s opportunity. Marvelous are God’s displays 
of grace and power to those who return in penitence to him. God always has the man for the 
hour. To-day in humble cottages in quiet valleys God is training up boys who will be the 
leaders of the Church in the next generation — boys who are to be founders of republics, and 
leaders of kingdoms, and pillars in the Church of the living God. So in the dark days of 
Israel did God mercifully furnish deliverers for his penitent people. In one of the poorest, or 
at least feeblest, clans of western Manasseh, that descended from Abiezer, was born in the house 
of Joash at Ophrah, probably near Shechem, the future deliverer. Gideon, the fifth Judge 
of Israel, was a man of noble person, and of a worthy family line. Joash might boast of 

1 Judges viii, 10. 2 Judges vi, 2. 3 Judges viii, 26. 4 Ibid. 5 “ Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 486. 



GIDEON DIVINELY CALLED. 


427 


magnificent sons, “each like the son of a king.” 1 But there was deep sorrow in the father’s 
heart, for all his brave boys save the youngest — the heroic Gideon — had fallen on Mount 
Tabor in the numerous and terrible fights with the fierce Midianites. 2 The years of submission 
were marked by outbreaks on the part of the sons of Joash and others who hated the oppressor 
and loved their native land. We look with gratitude and delight upon this youngest son, 
Gideon, the “hewer” or “tree-feller,” who had already hewn down Baal’s altar and the image 
of Ashtoretli. Already he had proved himself to be “a mighty man of valor”; 3 already, it 
is evident, the Midianites had felt the power of his strong arm and brave heart. His fields 
were at Ophrah, on the very scene of the invasion. When he comes before us he has grown 
sons, and seems to have been a man of considerable wealth, as he had his own body of servants 
and was accompanied by his armor-bearer. 4 But he was modest as he was brave; and he had 
no thought of heading a revolt until he was summoned by God to lead his followers against the 
foe. His call by God is an illustration of God’s adaptation of his methods to the spiritual 
infancy and primitive manners of the time. Gideon’s talents had hitherto been latent, for the 
most part; but God now appeared to him in a vision. In order the better to conceal his wheat 
from the Midianite marauders, he was engaged in threshing it in a cave. He hardly dared 
to allow the wheat to become ripe lest it should be stolen from the field; and he did not dare 
thresh it in the open field, but in a cave. There would be less danger of discovery by threshing 
it with a flail on the earth than on a wooden floor, especially if it were trodden in public by the 
feet of oxen or threshed with a roller. We see him, then, thus engaged on the ground by the 
rock-hewn winepress. 5 Interesting preternatural signs convinced him that his strange visitant 
was a celestial being. Subsequent facts seem to show that this visitor was none other than he 
whom we have come to know and adore as Jesus. Gideon offered his heavenly guest a present 
appropriate to a superior being — a kid and a small portion of flour. 6 These he laid on a rock. 
The mysterious visitor touched them, and immediately fire arose from the rock which consumed 
them as a divine sacrifice; 7 and immediately, also, a new spirit from God came upon Gideon. 
The narrative tells us that he was clothed with this spirit. 8 He signalized the occasion by 
building an altar on the spot made sacred by the visit of the angel; and this altar he dedicated 
to Jehovah-Shalom, “ Jehovah-peace,” Jehovah who will bring days of peace and prosperity. 9 
This name is itself a benediction and a prophecy. Gideon proceeded to prove his faith by his 
works, and at once made war on the idolatry of his own neighborhood, throwing down the altar 
of Baal at midnight. 10 

It would seem that his father, Joash, had yielded to the evil tendencies of his time so far 
as to have built this altar to Baal on the top of the cliff in which the winepress was located; 
he seems, also, to have had an Asherah, or “grove,” which was really a wooden pillar and 
was intended to symbolize the goddess of fertility, near the altar to Baal. But if an altar 
to Jehovah was to be built, all other altars must be cast down. So Gideon bravely threw 
down the altar of Baal, and with the help of his servants cut up the Asherah for fuel. He 
then laid it on the altar to Jehovah, using it as fuel to consume, in sacrifice to him, the bullock 
which his father seems to have consecrated to Baal. 11 This was a daring deed. The people 
were fearful lest they should incur the wrath of their deities, and they were likely to stone 
Gideon when they discovered what he had done in the darkness of midnight. Joash, how¬ 
ever, by his ironical question saved his son, rebuked the people, and threw contempt on 
Baal. “ Will ye plead for Baal ? ” asks Joash; and he answered his question by saying, “ Let 
Baal plead for himself.” 12 Because of this circumstance Gideon was called Jerubbaal, meaning 
“ let Baal plead.” The irony which Joash used as an argument against a god who could not 

1 Judges viii, 18. 2 Judges viii, 18. 3 Judges vi, 12. 4 Judges vi, 27. 5 Judges vi, 11. 

* Judges vi, 19. 7 Judges vi, 21. 8 Judges vi, 34. 9 Judges vi, 24. 10 Judges vi, 27. 

i* * Judges vi. 28. See Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 488. 12 Judges vi, 32. 



428 


THE ARMY OF GIDEON. 


defend himself was a common argument with the worshipers of the true God against the deities 
of all false religions. 

Stirring events now await our consideration. Great numbers of invaders are encamped 
on the plain of Jezreel, and the Arab hosts have come to make their annual invasion, and to 
revel in their annual depredation. 1 Gideon has been called of God to lead the hosts of Israel; 
but he demanded a sign from heaven which God mercifully granted him. He shows a boldness 
in speaking to God which came perilously near being guilty unbelief; he asked for signs after 
God had given direct promises. But the trying circumstances in which he was placed may 
justify the otherwise culpable caution which he manifested. He asked that the dews, which fall 
so plenteously in that land, might one night fall only on a fleece which he had spread; and the 
next morning the fleece was saturated with dew, and the ground was dry. The next night the 
ground was steeped with moisture and the fleece was perfectly dry. 2 Some have found in this 
double sign illustrations of Gideon’s own character, he at times being warm and zealous while 
the people were indifferent or cold, and he at times calm and cool while all about him were 
stirred with excitement. 3 

After this test he was prepared for the invasion of the foe. He sounded the war trumpet 
through his own district, and his own clan of Abiezer responded with enthusiasm to his patri¬ 
otic call. Messages were immediately sent through western Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, and 
Naplitali, and these tribes promptly and enthusiastically obeyed their leader’s summons. All 
doubt was now removed by the signs that had been given by God, and the response made 
by the tribes. No fewer than 32,000 men gathered about him ready for battle. Strangely 
enough the army was too large to achieve a victory which God designed to contribute to his own 
glory ; an army of this size would claim the victory for itself and deny God the glory which is 
his due. Proclamations were therefore made that all who desired to return home — all whose 
valor could not be relied upon in trial — should have the opportunity to leave the field and go 
to their homes. At once 22,000 men in a cowardly spirit withdrew. 4 Poor Gideon ! Happy 
Gideon ! Heroic and triumphant Gideon ! Even the 10,000 remaining were too many for the 
victory to be achieved. These were again to be reduced by a singular process, whose meaning 
it is not easy to fully understand. Near Mount Gilboa flows a copious spring, known as “ the 
Spring of Trembling,” because of the striking event which then occurred in Gideon’s history. 
It forms a great pool of pure water, semi-circular in shape, and large enough to permit many 
to drink at the same time. Gideon’s men were now led to this pool to drink. 5 Those who, 
with a desire for their own comfort, knelt down to drink, were dismissed; but those who, 
in their haste and earnest desire to engage with the foe, stood up, lifting the water to their 
lips in the hollow of their hand, as is still the custom in oriental lands, were retained. 6 The 
Hebrew word that is here employed, and which is translated “lapped,” is a word formed from 
the sound which dogs make when their tongues assume the shape of a spoon, and when they 
hurriedly satisfy their thirst. In Eastern lands, men passing through streams throw the water 
so rapidly into their mouths that the hand is after the second supply before the first is fully 
swallowed. Only 300 men lapped. Surely Gideon was now to be pitied. But God promised 
him that, with the 300 that lapped, he would save Israel, and deliver the Midianites into his 
hand. 7 

With these 300 Gideon resolved to assail the numerous hosts of the foe, in a night attack 
which was as marked by ingenuity as by daring, by stratagem as by courage, and by a victory 
as glorious as the attempt was heroic. An additional augury was given the leader to encourage 
him in his great undertaking. When the quiet and security of the night had come, he and his 
armor-bearer, Phurah, resolved to make matters doubly sure by going into the camp of the 


‘Judges vi, 33. 
4 Judges vii, 3. 


2 Judges vi, 40. 
5 Judges vii, 5. 


Ewald, referred to by Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 489. 
Judges vii, 6. 7 Judges vii, 7. 



SLAUGHTER OF THE M1DIAN1TES. 


429 


Midianites below. Stealthily they crept clown the hillside unnoticed by the camp, which, 
according to the custom of its people, was without sentinels. Thousands of Arabs lay wrapped 
in slumber, while their innumerable camels lay also about them in peaceful repose. One of the 
sleepers was awake, as Gideon and Phurah approached, and they had the joy of hearing him 
tell his comrade of a strange dream which he had dreamed. 1 How earnestly Gideon and 
his armor-bearer listened; and how joyously do they hear the dream and the interpretation 
thereof ! a The dreamer had seen a thin, round barley cake, such as was common to the people 
and the time, rolling into the host of the Midianites. It ceased not its progress till it reached 
the royal tent, in the center of the camp, and when the tent was reached it fell flat upon the 
ground. The comrade, to whom the dream was narrated, immediately replied, “This is nothing 
else save the sword of Gideon, the son of Joash, a man of Israel; for into his hand hath God 
delivered Miclian, and all the host.” With a joy which we can better imagine than describe, 
Gideon listened to this explanation of the dream. All was again quiet in the Midianite camp; 
sleepers and dreamers, unconscious of danger, sweetly slept to be waked a little later by the 
blast of horns, the crashing of pitchers, the flashing of torches, and the shouts of the Israelites. 
We watch Gideon and his companion as, with thankful and excited hearts, they return. We 
see them climbing back to their companies. Soon he sends the three companies to their 
respective posts, and each man is provided with a horn, a torch, and an earthern pot, and about 
eleven o’clock at night, as it is believed, the preconcerted signal is given. Instantly the crash 
of 300 pitchers is heard, the blaze of 300 torches is seen, and the terrible shouts of Israel are 
heard, breaking the stillness of the midnight hour, the voices all joining at once from three 
opposite quarters, shouting “the Sword of Jehovah and Gideon.” 3 A terrible panic seizes the 
disorganized Midianite camp; it is encumbered with herds and camels as well as with women 
and children; and in a moment all are rushing hither and thither in darkness, confusion, 
excitement, and alarm. The dissonant cries, still characteristic of the Arab race, are heard, 
adding much to the excitement of this terrible experience. The Arab soldiers know not friend 
from foe, and so, drawing their swords against one another, they flee headlong for life, the vast 
multitude pouring itself down the descent toward the fords of the Jordan in wildest disorder. 4 
Gideon was keenly alive to the importance of the moment. He followed up his first success 
with the utmost energy, enthusiasm, and courage. The northern tribes, who had come to his 
help, were sent in pursuit of the flying foe, whose design was to cross the river at the fords of 
Bethbarah. Messengers were sent through all the hill country of Ephraim to rouse the men of 
that great and haughty tribe to cut off the flight of the defeated foe. 5 Some, however, had 
already escaped over the ford; but the men of Ephraim reached the lower fords in time to 
prevent the escape of the great body of the flying host. Although the two greater chiefs had 
already crossed, the two secondary leaders, the sheiks Oreb and Zeeb, were caught and slain, 
one at a winepress, afterward known as the Winepress of Zeeb, or the Wolf, and the other at a 
rock which, in like manner, took its name from the slain chief, and was called the Rock of 
Oreb, or the Raven. 6 So great a part of the battle took place about this rock that the battle is 
called, in Isaiah, “The slaughter of Midian at the Rock of Oreb.” 7 In this connection Isaiah 
expresses the common opinion as to the greatness of the slaughter by ranking it with that 
of Egypt at the Red Sea, or the destruction of the host of Sennacherib. The author of the 
Eighty-third Psalm has this incident in mind when he describes the enemy as driven over 
the uplands of Gilead like chaff blown from the threshing floors, or like the flames as they 
leap from tree to tree among the mountains, when in the dry season fire has been placed on the 
wooded hills. 8 The Ephraimites dashed onward, passing the Jordan, and soon overtook Gideon 
and presented to him the severed heads of these fierce sheiks. 9 They remonstrated with Gideon 


1 Judges vii, 13. 
6 Judges vii, 25. 


2 Judges vii, 13, 14. 3 Judges vii, 19-21. 

7 Isaiah x, 26. 8 Psalm lxxxiii, 11, 13,14. 


* Judges vii, 22. 

3 Judges vii, 25. 


6 Judges vii, 24. 



430 


CHARACTER OF GIDEON . 


for not haying earlier called them to participate in the heroic struggle, and their rebuke of him 
was as characteristic of the pride of their haughty tribe as his gentle and tactful answer was 
characteristic of his wisdom, forbearance, and self-control. 1 He impressed upon them the fact 
that their gleaning, in having secured the heads of the slaughtered chiefs, was of more value 
than the full vintage of the slaughter of unknown multitudes in the previous part of the battle. 

Gideon, “ faint, yet pursuing,” pressed forward with his men. 2 He had gained two battles, 
but a third was needed to make the victory overwhelming. He pressed closely in the track of 
Zebah and Zalmunna, the two greater chiefs of whom we have already spoken. They exercised 
authority over all the host. The words, “faint, yet pursuing,” beautifully describe Gideon’s 
weariness on the one hand, and his energy on the other. These words have found an appro¬ 
priate place in the religious experiences of many Christians in all ages of the history of the 
Church. On, on he dashed, notwithstanding his exhaustion! Two halting places in his hasty 
journey are full of suggestion to all readers of this thrilling narrative — Succoth and Penuel, 
names which remind us of two great scenes in the earlier life of Jacob. 3 Far into the desert he 
pressed with haste until he reached Karkor, beyond the usual range of the nomadic tribes, and 
there he overtook the Arabian host, perhaps near Kenath. The remnant of the army thus 
defeated numbered 15,000; 4 these he scattered, and the two' princes of all the host he captured 
alive. We now have an account of his triumphant return, and of the fierce vengeance which 
he inflicted on two cities because of their indifference to the weal of their brethren. The elders 
of the two towns—Succoth and Penuel—were beaten to death with the thorny branches of the 
acacia, and the tower of Penuel was thrown down, because they had refused to give food to his 
men when they were so wearily pursuing the common enemy. 5 

The two sheiks are brought before Gideon on their richly adorned dromedaries, and with 
other evidences of the state of royal Arabs. These defeated chiefs still possess the brave 
spirit of the noblest men of the Arab race, and Gideon is moved as he gazes on their present 
degradation, and remembers their former splendor. He is almost disposed to yield to his 
tenderer emotions; but when he remembers how his brothers had been slain on Mount Tabor 
his heart becomes steeled, 6 and he commands his boy Jether to inflict the decreed punishment 
on the Arab chiefs. 7 The boy, however, shrinks from so terrible a task, and Gideon, at the 
request of Zebah and Zalmunna, with his own hand strikes the deadly blow, and secures their 
gorgeous robes and glittering ornaments, and the other spoil which their camels had carried. 8 

The memory of this deliverance remained long in Israel. It gave names, as we have seen, 
to the spring of Harod, to the Rock of Oreb, and to the Winepress of Zeeb. Gideon was 
modest as he was heroic. His magnificent triumph raised him at once to the highest place in 
the leadership of the people. They offered him kingly rank for himself and his family, 9 but 
the time had not come for a monarchy. Few men were more fit for royal honors and authority 
than Gideon; his very appearance was kingly. But, instead of accepting the honors offered 
him, he asked simply for the golden rings taken from the Arab host, that he might dedicate 
them as an offering unto Jehovah. 10 He combined, as did David in a later day, elements both 
of sacerdotal and regal authority; but dark superstitions mingled with his religious devotions. 
The gold thus procured reached the great weight of 1,700 shekels, which was thrown as a 
grateful gift on his cloak which had been spread upon the ground. 11 Strangely enough we find 
him making, out of this Midianite spoil, a sacred ephod to be used by himself in his house at 
Ophrah. 12 This ephod was an unauthorized imitation of that of the high priest at Shiloh, and 
the act of Gideon tended to take from Shiloh its honors as the center of the northern tribes. 
The ephod became an object of idolatrous worship, leading the people away from the service of 

fudges viii, 1-3. 2 Judges viii, 4. 3 Judges viii, 8. * Judges viii, 10. 5 Judges viii, 13-17. 

6 Judges viii, 19. 7 Judges viii, 20. 8 Judges viii, 21. 9 Judges viii, 22, 23. 10 Judges viii, 24. 

11 Judges viii, 24-26. 12 Judges viii, 27. 






ABIMELECH AND JOT HAM. 


431 


the true God. This is a sad ending of the glorious victory which Gideon had achieved. We 
all are conscious of the gentleness, sweetness, and nobility of his character; and we also see 
how these qualities were harmoniously blended with heroic courage, earnest faith, and national 
loyalty. It has been well said by Dean Stanley, that we have in Gideon “ something of the 
past greatness of Joshua, something of the future grace of David.” He was not a perfect man, 
but, on the whole, an admirable leader of Israel, and we are not surprised to learn that under 
him “ the country was in quietness forty years.” 

He had many wives, and left seventy-one sons, one of whom proved to be a great curse to 
Israel. The sad story of Abimelech is in strange contrast with the heroic and romantic events 
in the life of Gideon; but even this story has lessons of its own to teach the students of this 
early and troublous period. Abimelech, the son of a slave woman of Shechem, 1 eagerly snatched 
at the sovereignty which his noble father had declined, and he cruelly put his father’s sons 
to death, with the exception of Jotham, the youngest, in order that he might secure the throne 
and reign without a rival.- The story of Abimelech shows us, among other things, the great 
danger of polygamy, and the terrible jealousies which inevitably result among the children of 
numerous wives. Abimelech lent himself most willingly to the jealous hatred of the haughty 
tribe of Ephraim. He plotted with his mother’s family in Shechem that the city should 
choose him for king. He led them to believe that it was better to be ruled over by one 
man than by seventy, referring to Gideon’s other sons. 2 He also begged them to remember 
that he was their “ bone and flesh.” This only unworthy son inherited the daring of his 
father, but without his father’s sense of justice and self-control. There was, at the time, a 
tendency toward a monarchial form of government, but his most powerful appeal was to the 
common element of race between him and the people of Shechem. The people were caught by 
this appeal; they said, “ he is our brother.” 3 The slaughter of his brothers is the first 
recorded instance of the horrible practices of oriental monarchs, in slaying all the members 
of families lest they should interfere with the authority of the ruler. Abimelech retired in 
triumph to Shechem, his birthplace, the city so famous in the previous history of Israel. 
Beside the oak under which Joshua addressed the nation in solemn assembly, and where, in 
later times, the princes of Israel were inaugurated, Abimelech received the title of king. 4 This 
was the first time in sacred history that the title was given to any man. It was the critical 
moment in the history of the entire nation. One of the numerous brothers, Jotham, had 
escaped when the others were slain. At the time that the people were hailing Abimelech as 
king, 5 Jotham, with the practical wisdom and wit of his father and grandfather, appeared on 
one of the rocky spurs that project from Gerizim into the valley. Standing amid these rocks 
he was safe from the anger of the multitudes below. He then broke forth in a remarkable 
address to the astonished people. He uttered a parable, the earliest parable recorded in the 
history. He spoke, no doubt, in the chanting and lamenting style — the recitative—common 
to eastern story-tellers. His parable turned on the vegetable world. He described the vine, 
the cedar, and the thistle as endowed with human instinct and speech, as in the fables of India 
and Greece. “ The trees,” he went on to say, “ once sought a king, and came in turn to the 
olive, the fig tree, and the vine, asking each successively to reign over them.” Thus he 
enlarged upon the thought, affirming that the olive declined to leave its fatness and to wave 
over the trees; so the fig tree, with its broad and green shade, declined; but the worthless thorn 
eagerly grasped at the proffered dignity and boasted its willingness to rule over its faithful 
subjects. He then reminded the people that if they chose Abimelech, the worst of all his 
father’s sons, they might find joy in each other. But he suggested the possibility that a 
fire might come from the worthless thorn bush, and perhaps, also, from themselves, that would 
destroy both them and him. 6 He then disappeared, going, it is supposed, to the far-off tribe 

1 Judges viii, 31. 2 Judges ix, 1-6. 3 Judges ix, 3. 4 Judges ix, 6. 5 Judgesix,7. 6 Judges ix, 7-20. 



432 


DOWNFALL OF ABIMELECH— EARLY JUDGES. 


of Benjamin. This was a strange interruption to the jovial proceedings of the day when the 
worthless Abimelech was crowned. 

Abimelech was the bramble king who undertook to rule. A frightful policy was inaugu¬ 
rated— a policy which was afterward repeated by Jehu in the extermination of the family ot 
Aliah, 1 and by Atlialiah in the massacre of the children of Ahaziah, 2 and a policy that prevailed 
in Turkey, also, until a recent time. Abimelech left a viceroy, Zebul, in charge of Sheehem, 
while he himself lived in Arumah. 3 Abimelech’s tyranny was unendurable. Robber bands 
from Sheehem plundered all connected with him, and even tried to capture him. The people 
became utterly weary of their king, and attempted to throw off his yoke. Gaal, a Canaanite 
of Sheehem, made a treasonable speech at a vine harvest in the temple of Baal, proposing to 
dethrone Abimelech and himself to rule over the people. Zebul reported this speech to Abime¬ 
lech, who defeated Gaal and his men and expelled them from the town. On the following day, 
in another battle, the men of Sheehem were overthrown, and Abimelech, after putting to death 
all whom he could reach, destroyed the town and sowed the ground with salt. 4 Many who had 
taken refuge in the temple of Baal were destroyed by fire, Abimelech and his men having piled 
the fuel about the temple, burning about 1,000 men and women. 5 The tyrant then went to 
Thebez determined to destroy its inhabitants in like manner. But while he was pressing close 
to the tower piling fuel about it to burn it, a woman cast down on him a great millstone, 
seriously wounding him; 6 and, disdaining to die in so ignoble a manner, he commanded his 
armor-bearer to pierce him through with his sword that he might escape the shame of dying by 
a woman’s hand. 7 With his strange death ended the premature attempt to found a monarchy 
over a portion of the tribes of Israel. 8 


CHAPTER LX. 

JEPHTH All A A D SAMSON. 

T HE Judges who now followed were men of undistinguished names, and without heroic fame 
or enduring achievements. The first was Tola, of the tribe of Issachar, and possibly a 
connection of Abimelech, who secured, in the confusion of the times, the leadership of Israel, 
it may not be too fanciful to see in the meaning of his name — “a worm” — a suggestion 
of his insignificant personality and unimportant official service. He dwelt at Shamir, in the 
mountainous country of Ephraim. We know but little of his deeds, either in peace or war. It 
is believed, however, that for twenty-three years he defended the northern tribes. Later came 
Jair, a Gileadite of Manasseh, who was the eighth Judge. He had thirty sons, who were 
masters of thirty cities, and, like princes, rode on thirty ass colts. 9 His name means “ God will 
enlighten.” The Gileadites, on the east of the river, were enlarging their boundaries. The 
Midianites had invaded their territory, but had received a decided check by the strong hand of 
the brave Gideon. Jair seems to have been a vigorous and successful leader. His thirty sons, 
as has been intimated, maintained something of royal estate. New territories were won during 
his administration, each territory seems to have had one of his sons as its ruler, and the 

1 II. Kings x, 1-7. 2 II. Kings xi, 1. 3 Judges ix, 41. 4 Judges ix, 45. 5 Judges ix, 49. 

6 Judges ix, 53. 'Judges ix, 54. 

* For facts in detail, see Judges ix, 46-57. See, also, for fine descriptions, Stanley, “Jewish Church,” I, Lecture XV; 

and Geikie, “Hours with the Bible,” II, xvi. See Smith’s and other Bible Dictionaries under the names discussed. Also, see 

on Gideon and Abimelech, “The Bible for Learners,” by Oort, Hooykaasand Kuenen, I, xvii and xviii. 9 Judges x, 3-5. 




JEPHTHAH SUMMONED AS LEADER. 


433 


towns were known as “ Jair’s Villages”—Havoth-Jair. But comparatively little is known of 
liis judgeship. 

But a new invasion of the territory was made by the Philistines who attacked the western 
border ; and the Ammonites, a more formidable enemy, gained victories over the tribes beyond 
the Jordan, and also challenged the combined forces of Ephraim, Judah, and Benjamin. The 
present was dark, and the future was growing darker. The patriarchal government had now 
lasted 300 years, but disaster and anarchy were everywhere dominant. The national spirit had 
largely died out, and the national faith was constantly decreasing. On the north the idols of 
Syria replaced the worship of Jehovah, or divided the veneration of the people. On the south¬ 
west the gods of the Philistines, and on the east those of Moab and Ammon, had numerous 
devotees. 1 There was no strength, no union, no courage, and but little hope among the tribes. 
All felt the need of a monarchy. 2 The enemies of Israel were under the authority of kings; 
and these enemies had grown strong while Israel had become weak. The Ammonites, whom 
the forefathers of the people had crushed, had now, as we have seen, so increased in number 
and power as to become formidable foes. The country on both sides of the Jordan was thus 
harassed by enemies seeking plunder and inflicting destruction. 

God now raised up a deliverer after this fifth conquest by the Ammonites and their allies, 
who for eighteen years had held the country east of the Jordan in subjection. Once more 
the people turned in penitence unto Jehovah; once more he heard their prayer and sent 
them deliverance. The deliverer at this time was Jephthah, an illegitimate son of a Gileadite 
of the tribe of Manasseh. A rugged chieftain, a reckless freebooter, but a daring deliverer was 
Jephthah. His strange history and contradictory character are vivid illustrations of these 
troublous times. His brothers had driven him from home, and he then lived a marauding life 
on the borders of the tribe, at the head of such roving bands of reckless men as could be easily 
collected in that unsettled period. But when his kindred were groaning under foreign oppres¬ 
sion, they looked to this lawless compatriot for deliverance. They sent for him and made him 
their leader; and he did not disappoint their hopes. His fame had spread over Gilead and his 
haughty soul deeply felt the humiliation of his expulsion. He consented to come only on the 
solemn oath sworn at the Sanctuary at Mizpeh that, if he drove out their enemies, he should be 
their ruler for life. He at once sent an embassy to the king of the Ammonites remonstrating 
with him on his unprovoked aggressions; but this king demanded the formal surrender of the 
transjordanic provinces. Jephthah saw that negotiations with this king would be fruitless; the 
spirit of the Lord, as a spirit of strength and bravery, came upon him; and he at once prepared 
for war, and burst on the enemy with such fury that he drove them before him, capturing 
twenty towns from Aroer on the Arnon to Minnith and to Abel Keramim. His creed was 
strangely made up of correct notions of God, mixed with the dark rites of heathenism borrowed 
from the worship of Chemosli. While the prospect of battle was before him, he vowed to 
devote, as a burnt offering to God, whomsoever should come out of his household to meet him 
on his triumphant return. 3 He doubtless was familiar with the offering of human sacrifices to 
Chemosh; possibly, also, he expected that some slave, or, perhaps, an animal would be the first 
to greet him on his return. He gained, as we have noticed, a superb victory over the Ammon¬ 
ites, and the news of his victory preceded his own return to Mizpeh; but, instead of being 
met by an animal, or by a slave, his only daughter, filled with pride because of her father’s 
splendid conquest, came forth dancing in the gladness of her heart, and with instruments of 
music to welcome him home. The sight was enough to freeze his blood in his veins, and to 
stop his heart in its beating. What can it mean ? The joyous music ceases. The maiden 

1 Judges x, 6. 2 See Geikie, “Hours with the Bible,” II, p. 502. 

"Judges xi, 31. The word “whatsoever” in the Authorized Version may he rendered, as given in the text, “whom¬ 

soever,” as it is without distinction of gender. 



434 


A RASH VOW EXECUTED. 


draws near in silence. The hero of the hour is the picture of despair. The wretched man rent 
his clothes in agony, but the noble young woman insisted that he should not disregard his 
solemn vow. Her life is the awful price of his great victory. The bearing of both is equally 
striking in this sad calamity in their family life. Must she die — she, his only child, and so 
young and beautiful ? The greatness of the sacrifice he must make almost crushes his life; but 
the brave-spirited maiden rises with a noble grandeur above her own sorrow, and above her 
father’s grief, with her mistaken conception of God and duty; she glories in her father’s and 
her nation’s victory, even though it be at the price of her own beautiful young life. She is 
calm while rougli-cheeked warriors turn pale and quiver with sorrow. She merely asks for a 
short period to be given her, which she will spend in the lonely depths of the mountains 
bewailing her sad fate — bewailing, as did the Antigone of Sophocles, in her special grief, that 
she must die without the hope of becoming a bride or mother in Israel. No doubt all eyes 
were turned in admiration on the heroic girl. Then came the last sad scene, for “ he did with 
her according to his vow.” 

We need not be surprised that this story lingered long in the memory of all the people, 
and that for generations after the maidens, in sympathy with the self-sacrificing spirit of 
Jephthah’s daughter, bewailed her fate. The story brings us into the atmosphere of classical 
times; there is often a close likeness between the Hebrew story and the heathen nations of 
nearly contemporaneous days. It was an age of rash vows. This truth is illustrated in the 
vow of the whole nation against the tribe of Benjamin; in the vow of King Saul which nearly 
cost Jonathan his life. Jonathan would have been slain but for the interposition of the army; 
but here there is no mention of interposition on behalf of this heroic but misguided maiden. 
It seems almost certain that the darker view of this tragedy is the correct one. Jephthah 
lived in Gilead, and Gilead adjoined the countries of Moab and Ammon, where human 
sacrifices were not uncommon. This was the first and last human sacrifice offered in a mistaken 
interpretation of the will of Jehovah. Human sacrifices were not permitted in Israel, and 
this immolation could not have been offered on the altar at the tabernacle. It is not, there¬ 
fore, surprising that many learned writers have labored to relieve the sacred history of this sad 
story. They have supposed that Jephthah’s daughter was consecrated to some form of religious 
service, and was devoted to perpetual virginity. But such forced interpretations do not 
harmonize with the reckless spirit of a fierce freebooter and ignorant worshiper of God as was 
Jephthah. We must, also, take into consideration the times of anarchy, of ignorance, and of 
cruel superstition in which he lived. Indeed, serious objections can rightly be made to the idea 
that this maiden was dedicated to any form of religious worship. Vows of celibacy were then 
entirely unknown among the Hebrews; they belong to a later period, and to a different condi¬ 
tion of society. The maiden could not be dedicated to the services of the high priest, for he 
and the Ark were then at Shiloh in the territory of Ephraim, and Jephthah was at deadly 
war with that tribe, which, with its usual haughty and overbearing character, had resented 
his failure to summon it to leadership in the war. Two months after his victory over the 
Ammonites he fulfilled his terrible vow. Crowned with flowers, the brave girl was led with 
music and song to the altar. If the vow meant perpetual virginity, there was no need that the 
maiden should ask for two months of preparation; she would have all her life in which to 
bewail her maidenhood. Nothing seems more certain than that she was offered as a sacrifice. 
The act was the result of a false principle and a foolish vow. It was an act hateful to God; 
and, but for a natural repugnance to associate so terrible an act with a man whom God in 
certain ways honored, probably no commentator on the narrative would ever have doubted the 
reality of the horrible sacrifice. 1 

1 Jonathan the paraphrast, Rashi and Josephus, Origen, Chrysostom, et al., are quoted in Smith’s “ Bible Dictionary,” as 
taking the view of a real sacrifice. Joseph Kimchi, et al., the other view. See other authorities quoted by Smith. 




V ESTER LEV. 


THE DAUGHTER OF JEPHTHAH, 



















THE PHILISTINES. 


436 


Jephthali’s judgeship thus marks the first outbreak of civil war in Israel. Unlike Gideon, 
Jephthak had no soft words, to turn away the wrath of the haughty Ephraimites. Blows 
followed hot words. At the ford of the Jordan, Jephthah defeated the Ephraimites, distin¬ 
guishing them by their peculiar pronunciation of Shibboleth, meaning “water streams,” or 
“ harvests,” which they pronounced as if it were spelled Sibboleth. All who thus betrayed 
themselves, even to the number of 42,000, he put to death without mercy. For six years he 
ruled as Judge, conquering all his foes and being the undisputed lord of Israel. In Gideon we 
have the highest type of ruler of the time; in Jephthah and Samson the lowest. The Bible 
does not commend the cruel and superstitious acts of Jephthah. In the Epistle to the 
Hebrews he is mentioned among the heroes of faith; 1 but commendation for one worthy 
quality does not imply indorsement of his entire character and career. He was succeeded by 
a number of leaders of comparatively little importance—men of whose actions the record 
is silent. They were Ibzan of Bethlehem, who judged seven years; Elon of Zebulun, ten 
years; and Abdon, an Ephraimite, who ruled eight years. 

Another remarkable character comes before us for consideration at this point in the history 
of Israel. Like Jephthah, Samson was a man of mingled good and evil: he was a reflection of 
the contradictory elements of the time in which he lived. A new enemy to Israel had arisen, 
and a new oppression from that enemy was now experienced. In her eastern territory Israel 
had sunk to a low point; in her southwestern dominion an equally humiliating condition was 
reached. The new enemy that had now arisen was destined to give great trouble in the future, 
and had given some trouble in the past. The Philistines on the southern border were among 
the most dangerous and implacable foes of Israel. They were not disposed to retire within their 
own borders, as some of the other enemies of Israel had done. They came before us as early as 
the distant days of Abraham; they had also formed a confederacy of five cities in the Maritime 
Plain in the time of Joshua; but now they had risen to remarkable power and were impelled by 
corresponding ambition. In the later period of the judges these newcomers pressed very heavily 
on the small tribe of Dan, and so out of this tribe came the deliverer. Gaza and Askelon 
were in their power, and they pushed their possessions to the territory of Dan. The word Phil¬ 
istine, as already pointed out, is supposed to mean “ strangers or immigrants,” and it is barely 
possible that it stands related to the name Pelasgi. They were sometimes called in Scripture 
Cherethites, 2 which by some is supposed to be derived from the island of Crete, which may have 
been their original home. Others think that they went from Cyprus to Palestine, the name of 
that island having been akin to the word Caplitor, which place is given in Genesis as their 
former home. Successive arrivals came into the land in the time of Baineses III., who reigned 
about the time of Jephthah. 3 Bameses III. had driven back an attack on Egypt by the Philis¬ 
tines and other tribes; but many of the invaders entered, as it is supposed, the service of their 
conquerors as mercenary soldiers. But the Philistine part of these invading hordes obtained 
permission to settle among their brethren of earlier immigration in the southwest of Palestine; 
in that position they were to guard Egypt from attack on the north. 4 This territory commanded 
the pass to the mountain home of Israel. The five cities of Philistia — Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, 
Ekron, and Gath — have come before us already in this history; but now they appear to be 
dangerously strong. Several rulers of Egypt kept garrisons of Semitic mercenaries at Gaza. 
The Avites, dwellers in the lowlands, had adopted the language and religion of their fierce 
masters. In Joshua’s day the cities of the Philistines were not included among the cities held 
by Judah, although that territory was given to Judah. 5 Israel did not wish to arouse Egypt, 
nor to test the strength of the Philistines. As a result,the Anakim—meaning the “long¬ 
necked ”— and the Amorites found a refuge in these cities, whose military chiefs were called 

1 Hebrews xi, 32. 2 Geikie, “ Hours with tlie Bible,” II, p. 500. 3 Ibid, 507. 

4 Maspero, to whom Geikie refers. 5 Joshua xv, 12. 



CHARACTER OF SAMSON. 


437 


kings. These five cities formed a confederation; they united in their religious rites, and in their 
frequent wars. They had a strong force of chariots and also archers of proverbial skill. 1 They 
were distinguished for the strength and variety of their armor. The panoply of the Philistine 
warrior gives a remarkable list of weapons, offensive and defensive. 2 The Philistines were an 
uncircumcised people. They stood on a low level of civilization. They were intellectually 
stupid, and soon became the victims, when they were not the laughingstock, of men of the 
humor of Samson and of the mental brilliancy of David. Their chief deity was the fish-god 
Dagon. Against this fierce foe Israel was to wage war for the next 100 years, and at this 
critical moment a child was born, who, under the providence of God, was to rouse his country¬ 
men, to destroy his foes, and to make for himself an immortal name. It is not too much to say 
that the birth of Samson marks the dawn of a new era, which continued until it found its 
superb culmination in the brilliant reign of the immortal David. This era belongs partly to 
the gloomy age which it closed, and partly to the glorious period which it opened. 

The word Samson has "been explained to mean, “ little sun ” or “ sunlike 3 but according 
to some authorities it means “ strong,” and according to still others it means “ awful,” in the 
sense of exciting astonishment or awe, either in the minds of the father and mother who looked 
upon the angel who announced Samson’s birth, or in the minds of those who saw his feats of 
heroic valor. As we have frequently had occasion to remark, God always has the man in 
training for the hour that has come or is coming. Samson was the son of Manoah of the tribe 
of Dan, and of the town of Zorali on the border of Judea. He was a child of miraculous birth. 
He served his nation as a judge, filling the office for twenty years. He was also a Nazarite, and 
was endowed with special power by the spirit of the Lord. 4 As a result of this clothing of 
the spirit, and the other elements entering into his life, he became a man of prodigious bodily 
strength. This strength, however, he often displayed in the wildest feats of personal daring, 
and sometimes in amusements which involved him in perils from which only his remarkable 
power was able to extricate him. His opposition to the common foe was not displayed in 
consistent methods of defense; for he never appears at the head of an army, but his cam¬ 
paigns are the result of his remarkable strength and his strangely constituted nature. He has 
often been compared to the Grecian Hercules, and sometimes to the Arabian Antar. We shall 
see that a broad vein of humor runs through all the early exploits of this stout-hearted warrior; 
we shall, also, see that foolish and often sinful love of women, as well as the slaying of his 
Philistine foes out of mere recklessness, constantly marked his life. He was in many respects 
the most remarkable man in all this troublous history; but the life that began in miracles 
ended in fierce tragedy. As a Nazarite he was dedicated by vow to the Lord, and so allowed 
his hair to grow, and so, also, lived a life of rigid abstinence. We have in his case the first 
appearance in this history of the ascetic vows which finally found a permanent manifestation in 
the religion of Israelites, as in all the religions of the East and of the West, and eventually in 
Christianity, Mohammedanism, and other faiths of more modern times. Mohammedanism is 
still Nazaritish in its abstinence from wine, and even to this moment some of the Arabian tribes 
never permit their hair to be shorn ; and the hierarchy of the Greek Church cherish their long 
beards as evidences of their priestly character. We have already seen that at the time of 
Samson’s birth the Philistines were the masters of the Israelites; and Judah and Dan were 
subject to their dominion during the whole period of Samson’s judgeship. His term of office 
must, therefore, be included in the forty years of the Philistine possession. He is distinctly 
spoken of in Scripture as especially endowed by the spirit of the Lord; frequent mention is 

1 See authorities quoted by Geikie, “ Hours witn the Bible,” II, p. 508. ■ I. Samuel xvii, 5-7. 

3 See discussion in “ The Bible for Learners,” by Oort, Hooykaas and Kuenen, pp. 411 to 414, as to whether the name 
means *■ Sun-god ” and is a survival of sun-worship, a worship prevalent among the Canaanites and all nations issuing from 

barbarism, and a worship suggested by such a name as Beth-shemesh. 

4 Judges xiii, 25, xiv, 6, xv, 14, xvi, 20-28. 



438 


RECKLESSNESS AND STRENGTH. 


made, in different connections, of the general fact that at times “the spirit of the Lord came 
mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax burned with fire.” 
The other side of the truth is brought out by the statement that when his locks were shorn, and 
his strength was taken from him, “he wist not that the Lord was departed from him.” The 
phrase “ the spirit of the Lord came upon him,” is applied to Othniel and Gideon as well as to 
Samson; but to him there was special supernatural strength in connection with his keeping of 
the Nazarite vow. His whole character is without a parallel in Scripture. His history was 
intended to teach the Israelites, among other things, that their only hope of possessing national 
strength was in their separation from idolatry and in their entire consecration to Jehovah. He 
only could give them power over their foes and unity among themselves. 

When Samson was grown up to young manhood, his first demand was that he might 
marry a Philistine woman. This woman he had seen at Timnath and at once, with a strange 
mingling of innocent affection and inordinate desire, he fell in love with her. His parents 
reluctantly gave their consent to his desire, thinking that he intended some form of opposition 
to the common oppressor. On his way to Timnath a young lion roared at him, and immedi¬ 
ately Samson displayed his remarkable strength by tearing the lion asunder with his hand. 
When next he passed that way he discovered that the bees had made a hive in the carcass of 
the lion, and with that tendency to drollery which was characteristic of this great and reckless 
man, he made a riddle from this curious occurrence for the thirty youths who attended him 
at his bridal feast. If his friends discovered his riddle he was to pay each a sheet and a 
garment; if they failed they were to pay the same to him. The riddle has become familiar 
through all the generations. It is quaint in itself, and is striking in its expression, “ Out of 
the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.” As a result of the 
urgency of his wife he betrayed the secret to her, and she in turn gave it to her countrymen. 
After rebuking his companions, he immediately slew thirty Philistines. His reckless disposi¬ 
tion showed itself again when, after spending some time at home, he revisited his wife and 
found her married to another man. This time he secured revenge by catching 300 jackals, 
tying them tail to tail, placing a firebrand between them and turning them loose into the dry 
cornfields of the Philistines. Their cruelty was shown in burning his wife and her father, 
thus putting both of them to death. Samson’s wrath was gratified, as he fell upon them, 
slaying them in great numbers, and finally taking refuge in a rock called Etam. The Philis¬ 
tines were assembled in a pass and into their hands the tribe of Judah, utterly discouraged 
and disheartened by the oppression so long endured, cowardly determined to surrender 
Samson. With this thought in mind he was seized, bound, and brought to the Philistine 
camp. Once more the spirit of the Lord came upon him in mighty power. In his gigantic 
strength he burst the bonds that bound him as if they had been ropes of flax or sand. He 
then seized the jawbone of an ass, which chanced.to be within reach, and, rushing upon the 
hated foe, with this unique weapon he slew 1,000 men. The ground was suddenly cloven at 
his feet, and a spring of water flowed forth to satisfy his thirst in his exhaustion. It is likely 
that the water was found in the pass, which probably bore a resemblance to the jawbone of an 
ass, and, therefore, the supposed miracle of the springing up of the water from the jawbone in 
his hand is a mere misinterpretation of the narrative. When the spirit of God came upon 
him in this remarkable way his strength was so great that he could carry away the gate of a 
city, and, as we shall see, throw down the pillars of the house of I)agon. We next find him 
visiting a woman of disrepute in Gaza. This city was the capital of his fierce enemy, the 
Philistines. His going was an evidence of recklessness and of uncontrolled desire which we 
rightly criticise as utterly unbecoming a Judge in Israel and an instrument in the hand of 
God. His enemies were quick to learn of his presence. They promptly closed their gates, and 
silently waited for the opportunity to secure their strange, and now apparently helpless, foe. 





































440 


BETRAYAL AND DEATH OF SAMSON. 


But at midnight Samson arose, lifted the gates from their hinges, swung them upon his 
shoulders, and carried them, as if they had been the playthings of a child, to a hill nearly 
twenty miles distant. 

We find him again falling into the more dangerous snares of Delilah. This was a fatal 
step for the man who should have been God’s instrument and the deliverer of Israel. Imme¬ 
diately the Philistine chiefs bribed her, that she might, by all her seductive arts, learn the secret 
of his supernatural power. Once he eluded her fascinations; twice he avoided the trap laid for 
his feet; but with the third trial of her artful influence he permitted himself to be betrayed 
into her power. He frankly told her that his secret lay in the maintenance of his Nazarite 
vow, part of which vow was that his hair was never to be shorn. Then he foolishly and 
wickedly slept in the lap of sin, and in his guilty sleep she cut his hair, and robbed him of 
his great strength. Immediately the Philistines seized him, cruelly put out his eyes, firmly 
bound him with brazen fetters, and humiliatingly made him grind at the mill. We see in 
this case the blinding, binding, and grinding power of sin. Wonderfully did the great Milton 
seize upon this part of Samson’s history, and grandly does he dress the ending of this foolish, 
brave, sinful, and contradictory life, in the nobility of heroic patience and patriotic resignation. 
The cruel Philistines, in their untamed joy, insulted him in the prison, and, like the fierce 
savages they were, made a public exhibition of their long-dreaded but now defeated foe. They 
obliged him to contribute to their amusement in a sort of primitive theater. In this area they 
placed their illustrious captive. The roof formed the seating place of the structure. Great 
crowds of spectators gazed with barbarous delight on the humiliation of Samson. He asked 
that he might lean upon the pillars which supported the house of Dagon; his request was 
granted. He seized these two pillars; once more the power of the Omnipotent One came upon 
him ; he leaned forward with his limitless force; the pillars yielded to his prodigious strength, 
and in a moment more the whole building fell, burying Samson and all his enemies in a 
common and terrific ruin. Thus wretchedly perished the unique man, raised up by God for 
the deliverance of Israel from its Philistine foes. 

It is easy to trace points of similarity between this story and that told by Herodotus of the 
captivity of Hercules in Egypt; and they are numerous and marked. It is not impossible that 
Phoenician traders carried to Egypt, and other countries, especially Greece and Italy, stories of 
the great Hebrew hero. These stories would take the color of the national characteristics and 
the local tastes of the various countries in which they were repeated. Samson is a rare example 
of human strength and human weakness. His character partakes both of the elements of 
nobility and of weakness and wickedness, characteristic of that rude time. At one moment 
he is swept by wild and ungovernable passions; at another we see him in a noble indignation 
and true patriotism worthy of a hero and a Judge. But while we discover these coincidences 
between Samson and Hercules, we still see that, while the story of Hercules is allegorical that 
of Samson is historical. The Word of God nowhere gives unqualified indorsement of this 
strangely contradictory life. The writer of the Epistles to the Hebrews mentions Deborah, 
Barak, Jephthah, and Samson, but not to indorse all the acts of the semi-barbarous lives of 
the latter two. The Word of God nowhere indorses evil; God often uses men not wholly good 
for the carrying out of his divine plans. Samson is, in many respects, the most remarkable 
man in all this history. In him weakness and strength, playful humor and tragical suffering 
were strangely combined. His ending is a solemn warning to all men against the dangers of 
fleshly indulgence. The voice of Delilah may be soft and sweet; but it only woos that the 
Philistine may destroy her victims. The pleasures of sin, at longest, are but for a season. 
Sin smites while it smiles, and leads evermore to the dungeon of blindness, to the bonds of 
captivity, to the grinding of degradation, and to tragical destruction. We give Samson credit 
for delivering Israel; we recognize his faith as we do that of Gideon, Barak, and Jephthah. 


DAN DRIVEN NORTHWARD. 


441 


He weakened the power of the Philistines and poured, at the last, utter contempt on Dagon, 
their god. We may say, as we close the vivid and romantic history of the son of Manoah, 
in the words of the immortal Milton, 

“.Samson hath quit himself 

Like Samson, and heroically hath finished 
A life heroic.” 

The Book of Judges properly closes with the sixteenth chapter. There are, however, 
two appendices which give us an account of the case of two Levites. What follows, beginning 
with the seventeenth chapter, is probably an account of what occurred long before the events 
recorded in earlier portions of the book. A true chronological place for these chapters would 



SAMSON. 


seem to be between the second and third chapters. The history found in chapters xvii and 
xviii is obviously closely related to chapter i, 34. There the reasons ot the immigration of a 
part of the tribe of Dan to the northern quarter of Canaan are stated; for the Ammonites 
forced the children of Dan into the mountain, and would not suffer them to come down to the 
valley. The result was that the children of Dan were greatly straitened in this only available 
place, which was quite inadequate to the wants of a community of 64,000 fighting men. 
Unlike Simeon and Benjamin, Dan had no sharply defined tribal limits. It was forced, there¬ 
fore, to lead, for a considerable time, a camp life, being crowded together in a spot long known 











442 


THE WAR AGAINST BENJAMIN. 


as the Camp of Dan, 1 which was near Kirjath-jearim, the Forest City, 2 a few miles west of 
Jerusalem. Desiring a more enlarged inheritance, for their condition was intolerable in their 
limited possessions, 600 men, with their wives and children, wandered to the foot of Mount 
Hermon, overcame some Sidonians living there, took possession of their fertile land, and 
changed the name of the conquered town from Laish to Dan. The detached Canaanite com¬ 
munities in the north became an easy prey to the marauding Danites. In connection with 
their possession of this territory the events related in these chapters took place. Idolatry was 
established in that tribe; and the sad story of the Levite’s concubine and the war with Benja¬ 
min occupy the remaining portion of the appendix. It is expressly stated that these incidents 
occurred while Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, was high priest. 3 The only connection of 
these events with the history of Samson is that this portion also is concerned with the tribe of 
Dan. It is certainly one of the darkest and saddest narratives to be found in the Bible. It 
brings the blush to the cheek and saddens the heart with genuine sorrow. It is very certain 
that the events took place when there was no king in Israel, and when every man did that 
which was right in his own sight. 4 The history of these two Levites abounds in romantic 
incidents. The first part of the history may be read aloud; but the second is to be read in 
secret — perhaps it is scarcely to be read even in secret. 5 But it is a history which ought to be 
fully comprehended. We see here that terrible vengeance was dealt out to those who inflicted 
a scandal upon Israel. It is not necessary to go into details in these chapters of surprises, 
contradictions, and humiliations. How strange it is that a layman should consecrate a priest, 
as did Micali! Idolatry is here seen to have its pathetic side. Man’s attempts to make gods 
and altars illustrate his deep need of the true God and the only method of approaching his 
august presence; the soul cries out for the divine-human Priest. We see here that a converted 
thief elaborated a religious system. 6 We have here, as one of the greatest surprises of this 
strangely contradictory history, an idolater appealing to the true God. 7 It is not surprising 
that anarchy becomes dominant. When men enthrone wrong they experience grief; when 
they yield to sin they experience sorrow, for sin and punishment are inseparably associated. 
They are related to each other as surely as are shadow and substance. One gladly turns away 
from the sad details of this sinful history; and yet even here we can see how God can bring 
light out of darkness and good from evil. 

‘Judges xiii, 25, xviii, 12. 2 Joshua xix, 47; also, Judges xviii, 27-29. 3 Judges xx, 28. 4 Judges xvii, 6. 

6 Parker, “ People’s Bible,” VI, p. 125. 6 Parker, “ People’s Bible,” VI, p. 125. 7 Judges xvii, 13. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE BOOK OF RUTH. 

T^ROM the wild and stormy scenes with which the Book of Judges closed, we pass into the 
J- idyllic peace, feminine gentleness, and domestic piety with which the Book of Ruth 
abounds. This book gives us the bright and gentle side of the dark and rude picture presented 
in the Book of Judges. The story leads us into the primitive simplicity and the delightful 
harmony which were so strikingly absent during the preceding generations. It introduces us 
into a quiet, green, and gentle corner of history. The starting point of the story is Bethlehem, 
and we are glad to pronounce the name of the town, which means “House of Bread,” and 
which is prophetic of the life of Christ and his disciples. We are glad to part from stories of 
wickedness and cruelty and listen with quiet and comforted hearts to this sweet pastoral tale. 
We are grateful that the noise of strife and confusion, the hoarse shouts of victors and the 
grating groans of the vanquished, have ceased; and for a time we wander in the quiet corn¬ 
fields and hear the salutations between the reapers and their master, “Jehovah be with you,” 
“Jehovah bless thee.” 

This story presents to us the brighter side of Hebrew life. It shows us how the Hebrew 
faith tended to lighten the burden of poverty and to comfort the heart of sorrow. It intro¬ 
duces us to the simple customs and affectionate duties of that ancient time; indeed, it reminds 
us of customs which were becoming obsolete when it was written, but which were “the manners 
of Israel in former times.” It is a sort of appendix to the Book of Judges; and the effect 
produced by the Book of Ruth is all the more marked because of the sharp contrast between 
them. From the hideous deeds of the men of Gibeon we turn with joy to the beautiful 
devotion of Ruth the Moabitess, and from the rugged uplands where roamed invaders and 
defenders, we turn with gratitude to the sunny plains of Bethlehem. The book also contains 
the genealogy of David from the time of the patriarchs onward to Jesse the Bethlehemite. 
This genealogy is of great value, especially in connection with that of the Messiah; it is also a 
guide to the chronology of the period. Salmon, the husband of Raliab, father of Boaz, and 
the first proprietor of Bethlehem, is the grandfather of Obed, who is the grandfather of David. 
This genealogy may have been one of the sources from which the evangelists drew their 
materials. We know that the book is also typical in its character, in its connection with the 
lineage of the Messiah. In the marriage of Ruth the Moabitess with Boaz, a man of the tribe 
of Judah, we have a prophecy of the union of Jew and Gentile. In the commingling of 
nationalities among the ancestors of Christ, we have an idea of the far-reaching and world- 
including nature of the kingdom which he came to establish. Some persons, doubtless, are 
startled at the thought that Gentile and, as we might say', tainted blood is found among the 
ancestors of Christ; but there was a divine purpose in having in that list the sinful Tamar, the 
harlot Rahab, and the virtuous Ruth. 

It seems fitting that before taking up the story in its detail, and learning the lessons which 
it so fully and beautifully teaches, we should say something about the book as a whole. The 
authorship of the book is entirely unknown; probably it never will be certainly known. Some 
have attributed it to Samuel, some to the writer of the Book of Joshua, others to Hezekiali, 
others to Ezra, and still others believe that David himself was the author. 1 One reason which 

1 Dr. James Morison in Introduction to Ruth in “ Pulpit Commentary.” 

443 



444 


DATE OF THE BOOK OF RUTH. 


leads to the selection of David is that it is supposed that any other writer would, in the genea¬ 
logical table at the close, have given royal honor to David’s name. It is useless to hazard 
conjectures as to the authorship of the volume. We may be sure, however, that the striking 
and peaceful incidents of this story were preserved in the family of David, and must often have 
been narrated in his family circle. In the English Bible the book is found in a position 
according with that of the Septuagint, being inserted between Judges and First Samuel. This 
is a natural position; the book is, in a sense, a supplement to Judges and an introduction to 
Samuel. It is thus found between the ermine of the Judges and the crowns of the Kings, and 
forms an appropriate link between the period of the Judges and that of the monarchy. In 
the Hebrew Bible Ruth is placed between the Song of Songs and the Book of Lamentations. 
Ruth there appears with joy on the one hand and grief on the other. In the Vulgate the 
book appears, as in the Septuagint, at the close of the Book of Judges. It thus appears as a 
sort of biographical addition to that book; several of the Fathers formed one book of the two. 

The date of the composition it is impossible to determine. It seems, however, to have been 
written after the birth of David, 1 and perhaps during his reign. The genealogy at the close of 
the book implies that he had attained, at that time, to a considerable degree of historic impor¬ 
tance—an importance which suggests that he had at least partially completed his career as 
warrior, king, and prophet. In the opening sentence the writer comes down beyond the age of 
the Judges; for he speaks of what occurred “ in the days when the Judges ruled.” It seems 
certain, therefore, that these days were over and that another era had begun. He also, as we 
have already remarked, calls attention to customs which in former time obtained in Israel 
regarding the transfer of property and the surrender of rights. 2 A considerable period must, 
therefore, have elapsed between the time when these events occurred and the date of their 
record. The genealogy, at the close, is also carried down to the time of David. 3 It is true that 
this statement may have been added at a later time, but until that fact is ascertained we are 
warranted in giving the natural interpretation to the words recorded. Some writers have 
pointed out words and grammatical forms in the book which they affirm belong to compositions 
of a later period; some would even bring it down to the time of the Chaldaic period of Jewish 
history; but arguments based on verbal examples of this sort are necessarily of doubtful 
authority. The number of peculiar words and phrases found in the book is not large; they 
are also, certainly for the most part, the language not of the author, but of the persons who are 
presented as the speakers. They may, therefore, be the colloquial expressions of an earlier 
period—the period perhaps of the Judges. 4 We are safe in saying that no arguments based 
upon the language of the book can carry with them any great weight as to the time of its 
composition. 5 The earlier origin of the book, it has been pointed out, is suggested by the 
intermarrying between Hebrews and foreigners without arousing the repugnance which would 
have been felt at a later day; and no apology is offered for the marriage with Ruth, which 
does not seem to have given offense. In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah such alliances would 
have called forth indignation and protest. 

We may conclude, therefore, that the book belongs to the time of David. We know that 
that was a literary period in the history of the Hebrew people, and that David himself was as 
truly a poet as he was a soldier or a king. Men of like tastes would naturally gather about 
his palace and throne; for he was a man of broad sympathies and of generous impulses. This 
tender and beautiful incident in the life of his ancestors would doubtless arrest his thought and 
evoke his admiration. All the details would be familiar to him and to his household. But few 

1 Ruth iv, 17. 2 Ruth iv, 7. 3 Ruth iv, 22. 

4 Ewald thinks that we occasionally have an echo from the Book of Job, Geschichte, Vol. I, page 155. But he makes 
Job belong to a comparatively late period. He would put Ruth in the exilic epoch, and Bertholdt inclines to the post-exilic. 

B See excellent discussion in Introduction in “Pulpit Commentary,” page 11. There is often, in discussing such 
questions, a vast amount of learned childishness. 



PURPOSE OF THE BOOK. 


445 


generations liad passed since the events occurred, and every step in the connection between 
generation and generation he could clearly trace; even the words which formed the substance 
ot conversation between Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz could readily be remembered, and would be 
frequently repeated. The intense Hebrew feeling of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was such 
that a book like this could not then have been written; but David and the men of his time were 
broader in their sympathies, and were more ready to appreciate God’s relationship with all the 
peoples of the earth. David would not be ashamed of this Moabitish strain in the national 
blood; he would not forget that, during a most critical period in his own history, he enjoyed the 
friendship of the king of Moab. When he fled for his life from the presence of Saul and took 
refuge in the cave of Adullam, he brought his father and mother before the king of Moab and 
they remained under his protection while David was in the hold. This period seems as appro¬ 
priate as any that can be named for the composition of this beautiful story of the ancestors of 
David, and of him who was both David’s son and David’s Lord. Had the book been written 
in an earlier time, the custom of pulling off the shoe in connection with the making of 
contracts, which was common in the days of Boaz, would not have been spoken of as having 
passed away; and we can hardly believe that it was written at a time much later than that of 
David, for the incidents are narrated with so much particularity that we cannot believe that 
many generations had passed since their occurrence. It is noticeable, also, that the genealogy 
at the close of the fourth chapter stops w T hen it has been carried down to King David. 

The object which the writer has in view has been differently interpreted by different 
students. Some have supposed that his chief purpose was to emphasize the authority of the levi- 
rate law which required a brother-in-law to marry his brother’s widow. But it must be borne 
in mind that that duty is assumed and is mentioned only as an incident in the history; and it is 
also to be borne in mind that Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s husband, but only a distant 
kinsman. Neither can we suppose that the object was merely to trace the genealogy of David’s 
family. We may well believe that that object was not forgotten in the preparation of the book; 
but the aim of the writer is deeper than either of these purposes would suggest. Because of the 
differences of opinion as to the author’s purpose, different titles have been given to the exposi¬ 
tion of the book. Some have said that its main purpose was to set forth the rich reward which 
piety, sooner or later, will secure. The book sets forth the earnest theocratic spirit which is 
found in the conduct of all the actors in this archaic and idyllic story. We may believe that 
the writer was influenced, in no small degree, simply by the charm of Ruth’s character, by her 
devotion to her mother-in-law, and by the reward which, in the providence of God, she secured. 
She had gone to an unknown people; she had taken refuge under the protecting wings of their 
God, and she found him able and willing to grant her present blessings and to permit her to 
have a place among the ancestors of David’s house. There was a charm merely in the delinea¬ 
tion of such a character; and we may well believe that the writer was under the influence of 
that charm. There is a sense in which we must judge Bible literature simply as literature. We 
may, therefore, well suppose that in the spirit of literary enthusiasm, in part, at least, the writer 
began, continued, and completed his task. But he teaches at the same time lessons of trust in 
God, and gives proof of the reward of religious devotion. The theology of Ruth is simple and 
beautiful. She had come to Bethlehem to put her trust “under the wings of the God of 
Israel”; she believed that he was the rewarder of them that diligently sought him. Her love to 
Naomi, her mother-in-law, is worthy of all praise. Christ was not only the son of David and 
the son of Boaz, but also the son of Ruth the Moabitess. In ascending the genealogical ladder 
to Abraham, we see that there were other Gentile rounds therein, showing the relation of the 
patriarch with outlying families of the earth, and foreshadowing the glory of Christ who was 
to be the Kinsman of men of all nations and times. 1 This writer does not apologize for finding 


Introduction to Ruth in “ Pulpit Commentary,” p. G. 



ITS TRUTHFULNESS AND TEACHINGS. 


446 

commendable qualities among tlie Gentiles. There is in the book a beautiful absence of 
Hebrew bigotry, so often elsewhere found, but so conspicuously wanting in the spirit and form 
of the Book of Buth. 

The book, as literature, is worthy of high commendation. It is partly history, and partly 
biography. It might be more correctly described as a biographical episode in a continuous 
history. It abounds in matchlessly interesting touches of oriental life; and they are described 
with the striking vividness expressive of reality. In the vicinity of Bethlehem, at the season 
of the year described in this volume, women and children may still be seen gleaning after the 
reapers. All the particulars given regarding the fields, the threshing floor, the gleaning, the 
parched corn, the vinegar in which the eaters dipped their morsel, which was sour wine mingled 
with oil, are still a part of the local features of the country. It is still the custom for even a 
rich proprietor to sleep at night as Boaz is described as sleeping. The danger from robbers, 
and the unreliability of hired laborers necessitate the personal watchfulness of such a proprietor 
as was Boaz. Husband, wife, and family often encamp at the threshing floor until the harvest 
is over. The veil in which Buth carried home the six measures of barley was a mantle as 
well as a veil, and was such as Eastern women wear to this day. Dr. Thompson tells us that 
he often has seen this veil used “ for just such service as that to which Buth applied hers.” 
It is rare that barley is used for food in Syria except by the very poor; the fact, therefore, 
of Buth and Naomi being glad to secure barley is in perfect harmony with the great poverty 
ascribed to them in the narrative. The scene at the gate is in thorough accord with oriental 
customs; for the gate was the place of concourse where the people meet to hear the news, 
to dispense justice, and to perform all acts which pertain to the good of the community. The 
story has on its face every evidence of truthfulness; one cannot help feeling, as he reads the 
book, that it is a narrative of facts. Its perfect simplicity, its crystalline clearness, and its 
unconscious sweetness all give evidence of its perfect reality. Had it not been true history, its 
untruthfulness could readily have been discovered and proclaimed. The events narrated are of 
so deliberate and sensitive a character that their falsity would have been inevitably revealed, 
were they false. The existence of the connection of David’s family with Moab must have been 
known in his time; and, as we have suggested, this Moabitish connection must often have been 
the subject of comment in the royal palace. The writer of this book, therefore, must have felt 
the necessity of conforming the narrative to the absolute facts in the case. The introduction of 
purely imaginary events would have be.en discovered and quickly denounced by the supporters 
of the royal family. We have here no historical fiction; no “family picture painted on a 
canvas of romance.” 1 While any literature is read and loved, the story of Buth will maintain 
its place among the idyls of this ancient time and of this remote land. It will sing its song 
of family life and love in all the ages to come; it will tell the story of the widow’s grief, of 
a bride’s gladness, and of a master’s sweet joyousness. But the book is far more than an 
interesting and touching story. It abounds in spiritual instruction. It suggests the Gospel 
concerning him who is the Kinsman and Bedeemer of all men who will trust him, both 
Jew and Gentile, and it is sweetly prophetic of the union between the Church, as the Holy 
Bride, and Jesus Christ, the descendant of Boaz, as the divine Bridegroom. 

We are now prepared to look at the story itself, and to learn the lessons which it distinctly 
teaches. The time of its occurrence was during that stormy period when the Judges ruled in 
the land. It was, also, a time when a famine prevailed over great districts, and the people were 
reduced to great suffering; there was “ cleanness of teeth,” in many parts of the land. This 
famine penetrated even to the most fertile districts. If Bethlehem, “ House of Bread,” suffered, 
then less fruitful sections of the country must have suffered even more severely. The story of 

1 See Introduction to Ruth in “ Pulpit Commentary,” p. 8, where is reference to section 551 of “ Einleitung,” by 
Berthold, which is entitled “ Das Buclienthiilt Dichtung.” 



THE SORROWS OF NAOMI. 


447 


this olclen time begins at Bethlehem-Judah, or Bethleliem-Ephratah, “the fruitful.” This 
small town was distant but two hours’ journey from Jerusalem. This is the town so tenderly 
mentioned in connection with the death and burial of Rachel; and near it David fed his 
father s flocks. This town has become immortal, not simply because Ruth gleaned in its fields, 
but rather because there Christ was born who was “ made of the seed of David, according to 
the flesh. Our attention is directed especially to one family among the many sufferers. 
This was the family of Elimelech, who was a proprietor in the locality and lived with his wife, 
Naomi, and their two sons, Malilon and Chilion. The name Elimelech means “God is King.” 
After suffering much, this family determined to emigrate to the adjoining country of Moab. 
The famine may have been caused by one of the many ruthless invasions recorded in the Book 
of Judges; and it has been supposed that it was at the time of the occupation of the land 
by the Moabites under Eglon. We, therefore, see this family of four starting from their 
impoverished home and going to sojourn in the land of Moab, the hilly region southeast of the 
Dead Sea, where the descendants of Lot dwelt. Was Elimelech justified in leaving the people 
and altars of Jehovah to dwell among the Moabites in a land of idolatry? We must not 
pronounce too severely on a family dying by hunger. Doubtless he intended to remain there 
but a short time and then to return to the land of his fathers. But being, as it would seem, 
afflicted with some constitutional weakness, he soon died in this strange land; he left Bethlehem 
to save his life, but soon lost it among strangers. Great sorrow was in the heart of Naomi, now 
widowed and in a strange land. Attention is called both to her loneliness and comfort when 
we are reminded that “she was left and her two sons.” They did not immediately return to 
the land of Judea; for after the father’s death the two sons married in the land of Moab. 
Their wives were called Ruth and Orpah. Perhaps the young men had become attached to 
that land and to its people; perhaps, indeed, they went thither when quite young and so grew 
up with their heathen neighbors, and so became, in many respects, sons of Moab more than 
sons of Israel. We do not know whether or not their mother gave them careful instruction 
regarding the wives they should marry. 1 It would seem that there was no music of children 
in either home. The years passed from the time of their entrance into the land of Moab, and 
both Malilon and Chilion, possessing by inheritance, as it would seem, delicate constitutions, 
sickened and died. Surely this family life is peculiarly sad. There in the land of Moab are 
three widows, desolate and without wealth and its comforts. Naomi hears that there is plenty 
again in Judea; and she determines to return. But she does not wish to interfere with the 
prospects of her widowed daugliters-in-law. They, however, resolve to accompany her on her 
journey. It is beautiful to see how unselfish was the spirit of the mother-in-law on the one 
side, and of the daugliters-in-law, on the other. Naomi feared she could not make them com¬ 
fortable in her old home; she, therefore, gave them the opportunity, after they had accom¬ 
panied her for a little way, to return to their early home, expressing her earnest hope that soon 
they might have restful and affectionate homes of their own. Probably she never was in love 
with Moab as were her husband and sons. Certain it is that God gave her a noble spirit, and, 
although afflicted so severely, she still claimed God as her God, and the land of Israel as her 
home. 

The conduct of the daughters-in-law, leaving their native land and journeying with her, 
is also worthy of commendation, but the time is now come when she must prove them. She 
gives them the opportunity to return, and suggests the possibility of a second husband and a 
second and perhaps happier home. Her purpose was to test the genuineness of their deter¬ 
mination in following her to the land of Judea; and both seemed loyal in their resolution to 
return with her to her people. So they journeyed until, perhaps, they had reached the border 
of Moab, when Naomi paused and renewed her suggestion that they return to their own land. 


Donald Fraser, “Books of the Bible,” p. 97. 



448 


THE DEVOTION OF RUTH. 


Orpah yielded to lier pleading and returned to her own country; but Ruth instantly rejected 
the proposal. Orpah loved her mother-in-law, but she did not wish to leave Moab and its 
idols and journey to Judea to worship Israel’s God. Beautiful is the picture of these three 
widowed women standing, perhaps, on the borders of Moab; the daughters kissing the Hebrew 
matron and all three shedding tears of grief for the dead and of sorrow at the thought of 
parting from one another. The hour of decision has come for them, as come it must for us all 
at critical moments in life. Orpah kissed the mother, but went back to Moab — returned to the 
vile groves of Cliemosli. But Naomi and Ruth will journey to Judea, and will worship Judea’s 
God. Ruth’s mind was unchangeably fixed to accompany her beloved mother-in-law. All that 
was best in her soul as woman, as daughter, and as widow, rose into a heroic and poetic mood; 
and in a spirit of beautiful and poetic pathos she expresses the deepest feeling of her heart in 
words which will live forever, because of the circumstances of their first utterance, because of 
their unconscious rhythm, because of their intrinsic beauty, and especially because of their 
loyalty to Jehovah. Often as they have been repeated and sung — sung in strains of lofty and 
tender music — they come to us still with all their original beauty, pathos, and power. Our 
readers will be glad of having the words of Ruth given in a form 1 which brings out more fully 
than a prose translation, the original measure and movement: 

• “ Insist not on me forsaking thee, 

' To return from following thee ; 

For whither thou goest, I will go ; 

And wheresoever thou lodgest, I will lodge ; 

Thy people is my people, 

And thy God my God : 

Wheresoever thou diest, I will die, 

And there will I be buried. 

So may Yahveh do to me, 

And still more, 

If aught but death part thee and me .” 2 

The trial is over. Orpah has yielded to the attractions of Moab, but Ruth goes with Naomi 
to Judea, and thus to the home and heart of Boaz, to her place in Israel, and to immortality 
On the page of history, and in the speech of all civilized nations in all ages. Had Ruth gone 
back to Moab, her name would have been unknown in the history of the world, and she would 
have died in that idolatrous land without honor, without glory, without immortality. He who 
decides for God decides for all that is best and noblest on earth, and for all that is most glori¬ 
ous in heaven. Naomi yielded to the meek insistence of Ruth, and the two widows journeyed 
on, their hearts bound together with cords of love which no disaster could ever break. 

Their weary journey is nearing its end; they, travel-worn and heart-sore, are pressing 
along the streets of Bethlehem looking for some humble home. All is new to Ruth, and there 
-must have been strange joy in her heart as she journeyed through the land which Jehovah had 
blessed, the land of which Naomi had so often spoken. Groups of women are gathered in the 
streets; and the news of the return of Naomi accompanied by the beautiful young widow is 
reported from house to house. The name “Naomi,” meaning “Sweetness of Jah,” suggests 
painful memories and contrasts to the mind of the more aged widow. The people scarcely know 
her as they ask, “ Is that Naomi?” In her sorrow she urges them to call her not Naomi, but 
Mara, because the Lord had dealt bitterly with her. 3 The return is at the beginning of the 
barley harvest. The need of the two widows is great. It is a trial for both that they should 
begin their new life in such poverty. It is especially a trial for Naomi, as she has permitted 
Ruth to go with her to Judea. But Ruth is equal to the situation. She secures permission from 
Naomi to go out to the fields that she may glean for the support of both. Beautiful is the 


'Translation in Introduction to Ruth in “ Pulpit Commentary.” 


2 Ruth i, 15-17. 


Ruth i, 19-21. 




HENRY O'NEILL. 


NAOMI, RUTH AND ORPAH 
























GLEANER IN THE FIELD OF BOAZ. 


450 

picture as we see the young widow passing out of the city gate looking over the broad and 
golden fields ripe for the sickle, and in some of which the reapers, binders, and gleaners are 
already at work. Divine Providence causes her “ hap ” to light on the field of Boaz, a wealthy 
proprietor and distant kinsman of her father-in-law, Elimelech. 1 Perhaps the story of her 
kindness and faithfulness to her mother-in-law is partially known in the vicinity of Bethle¬ 
hem, and so all who know her are the more ready to give her a hearty welcome. Ruth, at the 
moment, knows nothing of the relationship of this substantial yeoman to her late husband and 
his family. Beautiful are the salutations which pass between the proprietor and his workers as 
he reaches them in the field during the day. 2 The simple dignity and almost knightly courtesy 
of these reciprocal greetings are worthy of hearty appreciation. Boaz is not long in catching 
sight of the beautiful and earnest gleaner in his field. He is struck at once by the air of 
gentleness and nobility in the beautiful widow — an air which he has never before noticed in 
gleaners in his fields. 3 In reply to his question, the overseer gives him considerable information 
regarding her, and especially praises her modest bearing and her industrious gleaning. Boaz 
promptly urges the young men to treat the stranger with becoming consideration, and upon 
approaching her informs her of the instructions he has given to the young men, and further 
tells her that she is to partake of the water which is drawn for the workers in the field. 4 
To be openly acknowledged by a chief man in Israel, such as Boaz is, fills her heart with 
equal surprise and gratitude, and, falling on her face, she bows herself to the ground. 5 Boaz 
permits her to continue gleaning in his fields, and to share with his handmaids at mealtime, 
and he also instructs the young men to let handfuls of barley drop in her path. Upon her 
return she tells Naomi of the generous treatment which she has received from Boaz, the owner 
of the harvest fields. Naomi then gives her full information regarding the relationship between 
Boaz and her family, urging her to go out with his maidens and not to glean in any other field. 6 
And so, as the harvest goes merrily on, day after day, Ruth continues to glean in the fields of 
Boaz, sharing in the midday meal, with its bread and vinegar, and its delicious parched corn, 
gleaning even among the sheaves, and receiving now and then stalks which have been pulled 
out of the bundles for her benefit, collecting her gatherings, threshing them, taking home the 
load, and telling her long and joyous story to the sympathetic Naomi. 

The harvest was over and enjoyment out of doors ceased; then it was that her mother-in- 
law discovered the desolation and loneliness of Ruth’s life as compared with the happy days 
spent gleaning in the fields. Naomi quickly perceived that an attachment had sprung up 
between the noble proprietor and the hitherto lonely young widow. Boaz, however, was silent. 
Naomi must arrange and execute the plan which shall remove the seal from his lips, that he 
may tell of the love that is in his heart. She contrived a plan which could be carried out only 
where oriental customs prevailed. We need not be disturbed because of this plan, for we may 
be quite sure that it needs no apology, strangely though the story may read to us in our 
different social conditions and with our different domestic manners. To those who are pure, all 
things are pure; to those who are impure nothing is pure. There was on the side of each 
absolute confidence in the incorruptible honor of the other. The levirate law gave Boaz the 
opportunity of marrying the widow of the deceased Mahlon. Naomi’s plan was in entire 
harmony with the moral ideas of the time, and she had perfect faith in the religious integrity 
of Boaz and the virtuous simplicity of Ruth. Ruth followed the suggestion of her mother-in- 
law, and laid herself by night at the feet of her kinsman while he slept. 7 Tender thoughts 
were in the hearts of both. True, he was comparatively old, and she comparatively young; 
but, although the disparity in their ages might not be an objection to their marriage, there was 
an obstacle in the way. That obstacle was in the person of one who was nearer of kin to the 
deceased than was Boaz. According to the old law this unknown kinsman had a prior claim, 

1 Ruth ii, 3. 2 Ruth ii, 4. 3 Ruth ii, 8. 4 Ruth ii, 4-9. 5 Ruth ii, 10. 6 Ruth ii, 18-23. 7 Ruth iii, 5-7. 



MARRIAGE OF RUTH AND BOAZ. 


451 


and his rights must receive full consideration before Boaz could press his suit. Already Ruth 
began to rest in the certainty of the love which Boaz felt; but now Boaz could not rest until he 
had ascertained the intention of this unknown kinsman, and had made the effort to secure the 
beautiful Ruth as his bride. The anonymous kinsman must first have the opportunity of 
redeeming the inheritance for himself. After the night was passed Ruth returned home, 
received the salutation of Naomi, and further instructions from her. 1 The next day dawns and 
Boaz is in his place at the gate of the city. 2 We have here a peculiarly interesting picture of 
old Hebrew life; and we have a striking illustration of the operation of the old Mosaic law 
concerning inheritance. Local courts were held at the gate of the cities, even during the 
troublous times in the period of the Judges. There is excitement, we may well believe, 
throughout the whole town. The people know something of what is passing between Boaz and 
Ruth, and what the careful and skillful Naomi is designing for both; for these things could not 
take place without arousing the interest of all the villagers. We see the primitive court in the 
presence of the elders and-the people at the gate of the city. On one of the stone benches, set 
for the accommodation of the people of the town, sits Boaz in his quiet dignity, the gateway 
in the East corresponding to the forum or market-place in the West. He may well believe 
that his kinsman will soon be passing out to his fields, or in from his threshing floor, and in 
any case he must soon go through the gate of the city. Just now he is seen passing. We hear 
the call of Boaz, “ Ho, such a one ! turn aside, sit down here.” 3 And then we read that “ he 
turned aside, and sat down.” If Boaz called his kinsman by name, the writer does not record 
the name. The language used is colloquial and demonstrative to an interesting degree — so 
much so, indeed, that a literal translation is well-nigh impossible. The opportunity is given 
to the anonymous kinsman to secure the inheritance; but when he learns that with it goes 
also the widow, he objects. We know not why he objects to the beautiful Ruth; it may be that 
he already has a wife. He assigns as a reason, “ lest I mar mine own inheritance.” 4 

The world has always rejoiced that this kinsman did not desire this widow, because the 
world has fully sympathized with the noble spirit and pure-hearted love of the gentle and 
generous Boaz. And now in the presence of the elders and others Boaz informs his friends 
that Naomi has returned from Moab and has determined, because of her poverty, to sell the 
property that belonged to her deceased husband. He then says, “ Buy it before the inhabit¬ 
ants, and before the elders of my people.” 5 The heart of Boaz must have throbbed strangely 
within his bosom. Great possibilities and disappointments or realizations are hanging in the 
balance! Great historic events are trembling on the answer of this anonymous kinsman! 
Boaz then adds that the property must be purchased from Ruth as well as Naomi, and that 
Ruth is to go with it as an inalienable part thereof, in order that the name of her deceased 
husband may be raised up on his inheritance. 6 The kinsman will not have the widow; and 
his decision gives joy to Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi. He at once pulls off his shoe and hands 
it to his friend, indicating that he resigns all his rights in that friend’s favor. 7 All the people 
gathered about are witnesses to the refusal on one side, and practically to the acceptance on 
the other. 8 Boaz, in the presence of the elders and the people, secures the estate and with it 
the beautiful widow as its most valuable possession. All the people shout “we are witnesses.” 
Then all lift up their voices and hearts, praying that the richest blessings of heaven may come 
upon Boaz and Ruth now joined in hand, as they had previously been joined in heart. 9 Thus 
Ruth becomes the wife of Boaz; and thus we have the first mention of a nuptial benediction 
in the sacred history. That benediction carries us back to patriarchal times in the simplicity, 
naturalness, and beauty of its family life. Ruth becomes the mother of a son who is called 
Obed by the matrons who give their congratulations and benedictions, and Naomi takes this 

1 Ruth iii, 14-18. 2 Ruth iv, 1. 3 Ruth iv, 1. 4 Ruth iv, 6. 5 Ruth iv, 4. 6 Ruth iv, 5. 

- Ruth iv, 7, 8. * Ruth iv, 9-11. 9 Ruth iv, 11, 12. 

31 



452 


RUTH .1 TYPE OF THE CHURCH. 


boy to her heart and cares for him with a gentleness and tenderness beautiful to behold. This 
boy, thus born, was the lineal descendant of Judah, was the head of the royal tribe, was the 
lineal ancestor of great David, and of David’s greater Son who was both David’s son and 
Lord. Well may art, poetry, and music unite to narrate the incidents, paint the beauty, and 
sing the charms of this sweet idyl which so beautifully tells the story of Naomi, of Ruth, 
and of Boaz, and which so impressively suggests the glory of David, and the glory of great 
David’s greater Son. 

We cannot but remark, as we read this story, on the characteristic frankness of Scripture, 
which, in tracing the origin of this earlier holy family, gives us the domestic stain upon its 
lineage, for both Tamar and Raliab are in the line from which David came. Ruth’s story is 
without a stain, but she took her place in that family, a striking trophy of the wonderful mercy 
of God, which snatched her from the doomed people of Moab and caused her to shine forever¬ 
more as a star of undimmed brightness in the resplendent firmament of Hebrew history. As 
the story closes we see Naomi cherishing her little grandson, the women of the neighborhood 
rejoicing with her, and her own heart sweetly resting in the comfort of this new family life, 
and joyously trusting in the God of Israel. Thus we reach the close of this delightful book, 
the curtain falling on the peaceful family, the love of God being in their hearts, and the peace 
of God in their lives. 

In studying the Book of Ruth it is impossible not to see great spiritual truths under the 
veil of the sweet and beautiful story. 1 A greater than Boaz is here. Christ, the Lord of the 
Harvest, supplies the wants of men and is the true Goel and Redeemer of man’s lost inher¬ 
itance. He is the true Kinsman, the true Bridegroom. As Ruth came to Boaz with nothing 
but her own needy self, so the Church and individual souls bring nothing but their need as 
they lay themselves at the feet of their divine Lord. And as Ruth soon became rich with all 
the possessions of Boaz, so the individual soul and the divinely-saved people become rich in all 
the unsearchable riches and glory of their divine Lord and King. There is also a sweet 
personal application of this book to individual souls. If Moab represents the condition of 
alienation from God, Naomi and Ruth’s return represents the coming of longing, hungry, 
helpless souls to Jesus Christ. Happy are they who choose in the great crises of life to go to 
the true Canaan and to receive as the heart’s Lord, its divine King. There comes a time of 
trial for every man and woman — a time when the decision must be made between self and the 
world on the one side, and duty and God on the other. Happy are they who, in that crisis, 
choose God and his service, leaving the world and its beggarly elements ! Unfortunately when 
that time of trial comes, Orpalis abound; there are those who start encouragingly for Canaan, 
for duty, for heaven; but they are governed by transient emotions rather than by abiding 
convictions of truth and duty. They follow for a time, but soon the dividing line between 
Moab and Judea is reached; and then the absolute and final decision must be made. The Lord 
Jesus would prove all who would come to him. They must leave all; they must take up the 
cross and follow him. Having put their hand to the plow, they are not even to look back, 
for looking back leads to going back, and going back is perdition. Only the pilgrims who 
persevere unto the end are saved. A solemn moment was that when these sisters-in-law were 
standing side by side on the border-line of decision ! One chooses life; the other death. One 
chooses human immortality and eternal honor; the other, human reprobation and eternal 
silence. Beautiful was the decision of Ruth, when she determined to make Naomi’s God her 
God forevermore — determined to live, to die, to be buried, and to rise in glory with God’s 
redeemed children. A lesson, too, may be learned from the manner in which Naomi and Ruth 
were received in Bethlehem. As Bethlehem was glad with their return, so ought the Church to 
be, when men and women come with joy to its gates. There ought to be a glad welcome for all 

'See Donald Fraser, “Books of the Bible,” pp. 104-107. 



HEART SERVICE AND ITS REWARD. 


returning prodigals. Ruth’s experience, also, when she came to Bethlehem is not unlike that 
of many a Christian in the first stages of Christian experience. There is trial in the effort to 
adjust one’s habits and thoughts to the new life; but soon there comes the sweet trust under the 
wings of the Almighty. There comes the time of going forth and gleaning, as we read the 
Word of God and seek his service; and we never go forth at such times in vain. He meets 
us evermore with handfuls of grain, and permits us to be refreshed at mealtimes with his chil¬ 
dren, dipping our morsel in the sauce prepared for his beloved. Every day when we go forth 
we may expect God’s presence, sympathy, companionship, and inspiration. He is our near 
Kinsman. In the person of his Son he is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. He is 
our Goel. Then comes the sweet and assured confidence of conscious relationship with the 
divine Kinsman. The gleaning gives place to resting in his love and rejoicing in his presence. 
Taking nothing in our hand, we lie down in submission and trust at his feet. He does not treat 
us with doubt and hesitancy, but he gives a warm welcome and a joyous assurance. We may 
thus repose until the morning when more glorious things shall be in store for us. Then there 
will come our marriage with the heavenly Bridegroom; there will come our death, our burial, 
our glorious resurrection with him; there will come our indissoluble union with him, even as 
the branch is united to the vine; there will come our enthronement with him and our ineffable 
and inseparable communion in eternity. 

For tlie unique and very full Bibliography on the Book of Ruth, see Introduction to Ruth in “Pulpit Commentary,” 
pages 14-17. For a discussion of “ Levirate Marriage” — levirate from the Latin levir, “a brother-in-law” — and for a fresh 
setting of the story, with light on the ancient customs, see “ The Bible for Learners,” by Drs. Oort, Hooykaas and Kuenen, 
Volume I, pages 424-433. The characterization of the story by Dean Stanley is brief, but interesting—“Jewish Church,” 
Volume I, page 336. See Introduction and Comments by Keil and Delitzsch in “Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.” 
For excellent expository, practical and homiletical work, see Parker, “ People’s Bible ” — Book of Ruth — Volume VI. 


CHAPTER XI. 



have studied the history of Samson, and have seen him wasting his prodigious strength 



» * in reckless exploits, and sometimes in sinful indulgence. His life, however, as a Judge 
in Israel was not spent in vain. His name struck terror into the hearts of the bravest Philis¬ 
tines, and greatly retarded the progress of their conquests. It also, in a corresponding degree, 
cheered the hearts of discouraged Israelites. But it must be admitted that his life was without 
permanent advantage to his countrymen. It was largely spent in vain; his preternatural 
powers were not regulated by prudence, and his moral nature was not under proper control . 1 
A wiser and more moral ruler ivas needed, in order to secure permanent liberty for Israel 
and to hold her foes in constant check. Such a leader was then growing up, with many tokens 
of the divine presence, within the sacred precincts of the tabernacle. 

We now come to the discussion of the last two men who held the office of Judge in Israel. 
It is not a little singular, at first thought, that the history of these two Judges is not included 
in the Book of Judges. In order to study that history we are obliged to turn to the beginning 
of the books which in the Vulgate are called the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Books of 
Kings. The titles of these books, with which we are more familiar, are less appropriate than 
those just named. The First and Second Books of Samuel are incorrectly named. Only 
a part of the first book tells us of Samuel, and the remaining portions are occupied with 


'Dean Milman, “History of the Jews,” I, p. 305. 




454 


CHARACTER OF ELI. 


accounts of the reigns of Saul and David. 1 It is, therefore, with some surprise that the student 
finds that the history of Eli and Samuel is in the first of these books rather than in the Book 
of Judges. This fact is the more remarkable if we suppose, as some authorities do, that all 
these five books were compiled about the same time, and possibly by the same hand. A closer 
examination, however, shows that there is wisdom in the present arrangement. The judgeship 
of Eli and Samuel is an altogether different office from that filled by Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, 
and other Judges whose histories are given in the Book of Judges. The true mission of 
Samuel was not so much in his closing the list of the Judges, as in his opening the way for the 
kings. He stood in special relation to David who was the most distinguished ancestor of the 
Messiah. The judgeship of these two men was priestly, and was intended, in some sense, to be 
hereditary. These two characteristics are not found in the judgeship of any of the other men 
who filled this office. Their work was exceptional and temporary, and it had no connection 
with the priesthood. None of the earlier Judges were of priestly descent. It is true that 
Abimelech, the son of Gideon, strove to inherit the powers and honors of his father, but he 
signally failed. Probably even the most earnest student of this history finds it impossible 
satisfactorily to explain how the judgeship changed its character so completely as we find 
it under Eli. There is a blank in the history between Samson’s overthrow of the Philistine 
temple at Gaza, and the Philistines’ overthrow of the Sanctuary at Shiloh. How came it to 
pass that Eli, who was of the family of Ithamar, Aaron’s second son, became high priest? The 
line of Eleazar, the eldest son, was not extinct. How came it to pass that Eli should have been 
both high priest and Judge? 2 Various answers have been given to these questions, but at 
most they are only conjectural. It may have been that Eli was elected Judge for exploits 
against the Philistines early in life, and, as a descendant of Aaron, the prominence he had 
acquired as Judge might have led to his obtaining the high priesthood. It is difficult to think 
of the kind-hearted old man, whom we find sitting at the entrance to the Sanctuary at Shiloh, 
as the successor of Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson; and it is almost impossible to think of him 
as obtaining the office of Judge by fraud or force. His gentle spirit brings sadness to the heart 
of every reader who thinks of his sons going into sin and bringing ruin upon the family. 

The conduct of the sons of Eli shows clearly the degradation of the people in the time 
of the Judges. Even in the priests, in the very Sanctuary, we find abominable wickedness. 
Hophni and Phinehas have been often described as the prototypes of sensual and degraded 
ministers of religion in all centuries and countries. The word “Eli” means “Ascension.” 
He was the first high priest in the line of Ithamar; and he was also Judge of Israel for forty 
years. He was eminent for piety, but criminal because of his neglect of family discipline. 
His neglect of his duty in restraining his iniquitous sons brought upon his house the judg¬ 
ments of God. 3 Instead of setting an example of godliness, the sons of Eli used their office 
simply as the means of gratifying their sensual passions. The Mosaic law required that burnt 
offerings should be consumed by fire on the altar; the sin offerings were eaten by the priests. 
The fat of the inside of the peace offerings was burned on the altar, the breast and the shoulder 
were the property of the priest after he had waved it before the Lord, and the rest of the victim 
was returned to the offerer and was eaten by him and his family and friends. But Eli’s sons 
cared not for this divine arrangement; they cared neither for the claims of God nor the rights 
of the people. They sent their servants to places where the offerer’s share was being boiled, 
and with the flesh hook, they drew out for their masters whatever it caught. They also 
demanded a share of the raw flesh before the fat had been offered on the altar. They thus 
desecrated the sacred offerings, and took away the sacred food from those to whom it rightly 
belonged. Their influence led to the casting of the entire service into disrepute. Many women 

1 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary,” p. 17. 2 Introduction to Joshua in “ Pulpit Commentary.” 

*1. Samuel iii, 11-14. 



BIRTH OF SAMUEL. 


45o 


were employed outside the tabernacle in iireparing the sacred bread, attending to the holy 
garments, and leading the sacred songs and dances. These women the sons of Eli made their 
victims. Their quiet, gentle, and humble father did not use his authority as Judge, priest, and 
father to rebuke, with appropriate severity, such abominable conduct on the part of his sons. 
He merely gave godly counsel to these offenders against the laws of God and man. A prophet, 
and the first mentioned since the day of Moses, brought Eli the terrible message that Jehovah 
would inflict punishment upon his family. The details of this terrible prophecy are given us 
in full. 1 He also foretold that Hoplmi and Phinelias, Eli’s two sons, would perish in one day, 
and that the priesthood would continue not in his line, hut in the elder line, while his race 
would sink to obscurity and want. 

A new character, and one of the most glorious in all sacred history, comes before us at this 
time in connection with the life of Eli. Like Moses, this remarkable man is made known to us 
from his hirtli. We once more see how God in times of depression and iniquity raises up the 
fitting instrument for deliverance. In Ramathaim-zophim, in the south of the mountains of 
Ephraim, lived the family to whom we are now introduced in the sacred story. 2 The name of 
the husband was Elkanah, meaning “ whom God created; ” the name of one of his wives was 
Hannah, meaning “ grace or favor,” and the name of the second wife was Peninnah, meaning 
“ coral.” Two wives are one too many in any home, however large. This double marriage did 
not add to the husband’s happiness. Elkanah, however, was a worthy man. He was a Levite, 
and, even in those wild and wicked times, he went up yearly with his whole family to Shiloh at 
the Passover. 3 Peninnah was the mother of his sons and daughters, hut Hannah had neither 
son nor daughter. Peninnah, therefore, rightly claimed a share in the offerings for her sons and 
daughters, but the childless Hannah had only a single portion, although she had the larger and 
warmer place in his heart. We have before us the sad picture of Hannah at the door of the 
tabernacle, where Eli used to sit, after the family rejoicings. Her soul was bitter because of the 
taunts of her rival. Most beautifully is the story told of her longing and praying for a son. 
She vowed that if God granted her this honor and blessing she would consecrate the infant hoy 
to him as a Nazarite. Vows in oriental lands, in contemplation of the hirtli of a child, are still 
common. The birth of a son is especially a cause for joy; hut the birth of a daughter often 
brings such humiliation to the father that he refuses to see or speak to the mother; and her 
friends and relatives, especially the women, upbraid her and condole with him. Indeed, the 
birth of a daughter is sometimes given as a reason for sending the wife away in dishonor. In 
due time a hoy was born to Hannah. He was named Samuel, meaning “ heard of God,” because 
of the divine response to her wifely longing and her earnest prayer. This mother was endowed 
with a prophetic spirit. She poured out her thankful heart in a hymn which takes rank among 
the finest Hebrew lyrics. This song anticipates the song of Mary, the mother of our Lord; it 
directly suggested to her many of her noblest thoughts and some of her suhlimest expressions. 
The joy of her heart knew no bounds; it was as great now as her sorrow had previously been. 
Beautiftil was the devotion of Hannah to her son, and great her gratitude to God. Year after 
year, when Elkanah went up to Shiloh to offer sacrifices and to pay tithes, she staid at home 
with the boy till he should be old enough to go with her to the tabernacle. 4 When that time 
came she loaned him to Jehovah and entrusted him to Eli in the Sanctuary, where he “ minis¬ 
tered to the Lord in a linen epliod.” 5 It was his mother’s great joy, year by year, when she 
came up to the feasts, to bring him this simple garment made by her own loving hands. 

Every child knows the story of Samuel waking at night and hearing his Maker’s voice 
while he waited on the high priest in the sacred tent at Shiloh. It was difficult for Eli to 
realize that the Lord spake unto the child. In the stillness of the early dawn, while the seven- 
branched candlestick gave its light, the soft voice of the child was divinely chosen to announce 

1 1. Samuel ii, 27-36. 2 1. Samuel i, 1. 3 1. Samuel i, 3. 4 1. Samuel i, 22. 5 1. Samuel ii, 18. 



CAPTURE OF THE ARK. 


456 

to Eli the doom of his house, because his sons had reviled God and their father had not 
restrained them. The word Hophni means “ the fighter,” and Phinehas “ the brazen¬ 
mouthed.” Once more the implacable Philistines are invading Israel. They drive back the 
people of Israel to a spot between the western entrance of the pass of Beth-horon and Beth- 
shemesh. The Philistines were accustomed to bring images of their gods into the battlefields. 
The superstitious leaders of Israel supposed that the victory of the Philistines was due to that 
cause. Therefore, they went across the hills to Shiloh and brought back to the camp the 
solemn symbol of the presence of God, with Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, as its priestly 
attendants. 1 As the Ark approached, the “ earth rang again ” with the shouts of joy on the 
part of the Israelites in anticipation of victory. The Philistines, learning the cause of this 
shouting, determined not to be the slaves of the Hebrews, but to fight with the desperation of 
despair, and to “quit themselves like men.” 2 Terrible was the defeat of Israel—30,000 
perished. The iron chariots of the Philistines triumphed. That day, or the next, up the steep 
pass to Shiloh ran a Benjamite. He accomplished the distance of nearly thirty miles before 
night. All through the villages of the tribes the people were anxiously waiting for news from 
the army. In the Sanctuary town from which the Ark had been taken the anxiety was intense. 
Two of the townspeople are singled out for special mention: Eli, now ninety-eight years old 
and blind, sitting, as was his wont, by the gate of the tabernacle on the road, and the other the 
wife of Phinehas. The darkness of evening is approaching, and the young man rushes up the 
valley to the gate of Shiloh. Dust is on his head, his clothes are torn, and all who see these 
signs of grief know his sad message. A loud wail runs all through the towns. 3 He presses 
his way to Eli; the terrible story must be told. Israel is beaten, and Hophni and Phinehas 
are dead; but, saddest of all, the Ark of God is taken. The old man’s heart breaks with the 
terrible news. He falls backward from his seat smitten, as hy the hand of God, and dies. The 
wife of Phinehas, in the excitement of the moment, becomes the mother of a living son; but 
the joy of this birth is almost forgotten because the Ark of God is in the hands of the Philis¬ 
tines. With her dying breath she calls that son Ichabod, “The glory is departed.” 4 These 
were terrible experiences. The nation never forgot that sad hour. Years afterward the echo 
of this sorrow is heard in the psalms. Indeed, this appalling calamity was associated on the 
part of Israel with a sorrow which no words could adequately express. The Philistines had, 
as they supposed, captured the chief god of their fierce foe. They carried off the Ark and 
placed it as a trophy in the shrine of their fish-god Dagon, in the temple at Aslidod. 5 This 
was considered to be a victory over Jehovah himself. In later times various nations have 
captured the gods of their foes, and brought the statues and pictures to adorn their triumph. 
Silently the Ark was placed in the temple of Dagon, but when the next morning dawned the 
image of Dagon was found lying on the ground, dust-covered, before the Ark of the Lord. It 
was raised again to its place, but on the second morning was found, not only cast down, but 
broken in its upper part. This sea-god was half human and half fish. The human part was 
dashed to pieces, while the fish half lay dishonored and in contempt on the threshold of the 
cell, on which thereafter no one would step, but all leaped over it — a custom which was found 
in Israel long years afterward. 

Soon another humiliation followed the dishonor that was done to the Ark of God. A 
terrible plague broke out in Ashdod, which plague of haemorrhoids, or some similar pestilence, 
was accompanied by mice and other similar creatures which attacked the crops and produced a 
deadly destruction. Innumerable field rats still produce terrible depredations on fields of 
wheat and barley in Asia Minor ; they also destroy vines and mulberry trees. The Philistines 
were glad to send the Ark to Gath, and then to Ekron; 6 but in both these places its presence 


1 1. Samuel iv, 4. 

4 1. Samuel iv, 21. 


2 1. Samuel iv, 9. 
5 1. Samuel v, 2. 


3 See description in Geikie, “Hours with the Bible,” III, p. 28. 
6 1. Samuel v, 8-12. 

























458 


THE ARK RETURNED—SHILOH DESTROYED. 


produced disaster; and so the foes of Israel, after seven months, were glad to send it back to 
the Israelites. 1 Images, in gold, of the mice and the tumors which had afflicted them were 
made and sent hack with the Ark, one for each city. The custom of hanging beside altars in 
the temples models of the parts of the body which had been healed was common in Greece, and 
is still seen in the Greek churches of Russia, in the Roman churches in Italy, in Switzerland, 
and even in America. 2 But among the Philistines these images were not an offering for the 
recovery secured, for the plague was still raging; they were rather proofs that the plague had 
not come by chance, but had been inflicted by the God of the Israelites, because of the dishonor 
which had been done to the Ark of the Covenant. A striking picture is that presented to us 
in the sacred history when the Ark was returned. It was placed in a new cart. Two milch 
cows — cows never before yoked to a vehicle—their calves being left at home, drew the cart. 
These cows thus laid aside their natural instincts. The cart was attended by the five princes of 
the Philistine cities, and with its solemn load was driven to Beth-shemesh. 3 It was now the 
month of June; the reapers were in the field as the strange procession approached, and their 
joy was great as the cart went slowly up the long valley. The Levites received the Ark with 
becoming reverence. They laid it, with the Philistines’ offering, on a great stone, hastily built 
an altar, and, using the wood of the cart for fuel, they consumed the cows that had drawn it as 
a sacrifice to God expressive of their grateful joy and their devout faith. Some, however, who 
were tainted with the heathenism of the time, refused to join in these glad ceremonies, and 
many of them were smitten because of their unbelief. The number given in our version of 
the Scriptures, 50,070, 4 is doubtless an error of the copyist; it is given in the Septuagint as 
three score and ten men. In a village the size of Beth-shemesh there could have been no such 
population as would have been implied in this larger number. 

The Philistines followed up the success which they had won when they captured the Ark. 
As far north as Dan the country felt the power of their hand. Shiloh, with all its sacred asso¬ 
ciations as the religious capital, was burnt to the ground; but the Levites succeeded in carrying 
off the tabernacle in safety. Built on a hill, with a pleasant valley to the south, and surrounded 
with high hills, Shiloh was beautiful for situation, and was long the sanctuary of Israel. To 
Shiloh the faithful had come year by year, as did Hannah, to the great feast, to pour out their 
hearts before God. Near the Sanctuary the young men and maidens had held their merry- 
makings season after season. There, too, the Te Deum over great victories had often been sung. 
But now Shiloh was largely deserted and was sinking into insignificance and obscurity. 5 Even 
its site remained unknown until Dr. Robinson rediscovered it by following the exact details 
given in Judges. 6 Its early associations are still tenderly suggested by the name Seilun, by 
which it was long known. It is said that a small village still crowns the hill, and some ancient 
stones are to be seen built into the modern walls. 7 It is believed that the site of the tabernacle 
has been discovered in a part of the ground which has been leveled over a space 77 feet wide 
and 412 feet long, the rocks being cut into to the depth of 5 feet. On this spot, as Dr. Geikie 
suggests, in all likelihood, rose the sacred tent, the last memorial of the wandering life of the 
Desert, and the first real suggestion of the permanent temple in Jerusalem. Here are the few 
memorials left that once marked the home of Eli and the tabernacle where Samuel spent the 
days of his boyhood. The tabernacle never again boasted of the Ark; and its history, after its 
removal from Shiloh, is wrapped in obscurity. With the building of Solomon’s temple, the 
tender memories which had gathered about the old tabernacle perished, and it vanished entirely 
from history. After its return to Beth-shemesh, the Ark was removed to Kirjath-jearim, 
the “town of the woods.” There it found a resting place in the house of a Levite named 

1 1. Samuel vi, 1. 2 See Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” III, p. 32, and the authorities he quotes. 

3 1. Samuel vi, 10-12. * Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” III, p. 35; I. Samuel vi, 19. 

5 Psalm xxviii, 60; Jeremiah vii, 12. 6 Judges xxi, 19 ; Robinson, “ Biblical Researches,” II, p. 269. 

7 Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” III, p. 37, and his authorities. 



RULE AND CHARACTER OF SAMUEL. 


459 

Abinadab for twenty years until David finally brought it, amid immortal songs of rejoicing, to 
its prepared habitation — to its home in Jerusalem. 

Twenty years longer the Israelites must groan under the yoke of the Philistines. Samuel 
was now growing to manhood. He possessed not merely the authority of a Judge and the 
dignity of a prophet, but also the wisdom of a teacher and the functions of a priest. His 
influence was acquired not by warlike exploits, but rather by force of natural and spiritual 
character. He exercised vast authority as he judged Israel at Mizpeh. We have seen that 
he was possibly of Levitical origin and had been brought up in the tabernacle. He had, 
however, a more spiritual conception of religion than many in his time, for he allowed the 
Ark to remain twenty years at Ivirjath-jearim. The duty of obedience to God he constantly 
enforced, showing the people that “ to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the 
fat of rams.” 1 His influence led Israel to abandon idolatry and to shake off the yoke of the 
Philistine oppression. 

All through Samuel’s life he maintained his lofty tone and his sacred influence. In his 
old age he was able to challenge Israel to point out any one instance in which he had used his 
great authority for personal or unworthy ends. 2 Unfortunately, his sons were not like their 
father. 3 The elders of Israel saw the danger to the nation which would come from the assump¬ 
tion of power by these unworthy sons upon Samuel’s death. Fearing that the country would 
relapse into disorder, they proposed that they should have a king like the nations about them. 4 
The proposal was not the result of true faith, and Samuel protested against it. He affirmed that 
it was disloyalty to God. The desire, however, was granted, and God overruled all its worst 
elements for the establishment of the kingdom and the manifestation of his own glory. In the 
kingdom, as in the commonwealth, Samuel was honored for his pure character, his unwaver¬ 
ing faith, and his unquestioning devotion to God. He was permitted to anoint the first king 
and the second. Without a murmur he surrendered the great political power which he had 
wielded. He exacted from the monarchy constitutional guarantees that its power should be 
rightly exercised. Then Samuel retired from his prominent place in the history of the nation. 
His last years were saddened by the unworthiness of King Saul; his worst misgivings when 
the elders asked for a king were more than realized. He died at Ramali, where he was born. 

With the exception of Moses, he was the greatest man whom Israel had produced, until 
the days of David. He was a patriot and a prophet, a statesman, a teacher, a ruler, and one 
who feared the face of neither God nor man because he was conscious of his loyalty to God and 
to duty. In his childhood he declared the rejection of the high priest and his sons; in his old 
age he declared the rejection of the king; but the sorrow of this declaration was relieved by 
the knowledge that God would raise up David, the Bethlehemite, to reign as king over Israel, 
in place of Saul whom God had rejected. 

In the time of Samuel, prophecy appears as one of the established and recognized features 
of the national life. It is true that Abraham and Moses are vaguely called prophets; it is also 
true that the great age of prophecy was to commence with Elijah, and to continue through 
the line of poet-prophets during the later kings. A sharp distinction is to be made between 
the primary and secondary sense of the word prophet. Prophecy — the foretelling of future 
events — is, in popular estimation, the dominant attribute of the Hebrew prophet; but this is 
not the true thought of the Hebrew word nabi, and the Greek word prophetes. These words 
have a much more comprehensive meaning. The nabi is the man who speaks in the name and 
by the authority of God; he is, if we may so say, the voice of God to man; he is a foreteller, 
also a forthteller; but, still more exactly, he is a “ forteller,” a spokesman. The prophet was 
one known by his ecstatic utterances; the verb which we translate to prophesy was occasionally 
used in the sense of being raving mad. The word nabi is generally derived from a word 


1 1. Samuel xv, 22. 


* I. Samuel xii, 3. 


3 1. Samuel viii, 3. 


* I. Samuel viii, 5. 



SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS—MONARCHY ESTABLISHED. 


4G0 

meaning “to bubble forth” like a fountain. The prophet is discriminated from false prophets 
especially by the purer religious instincts in the heart of God’s people. In the time of Saul 
this office was recognized as belonging to a class of men. There were schools of the prophets, 
in which a distinct and peculiar life was lived, and special training and discipline were given. 
The study of the law doubtless formed an important part of this instruction. The students, 
like Orientals generally, when they are, as they believe, under supernatural influences, were 
often wrought up to a kind of ecstatic excitement which expressed itself in wild dances and 
gesticulations. Samuel appears in the history as Judge, prophet, and teacher in the schools 
of the prophets. He probably established the “ Schools of the Prophets.” We have seen that 
the high priesthood passed into the older branch of the family of Eli. The priesthood itself 
seemed to sink into insignificance before the dignity of Samuel. He was dedicated to God as a 
Xazarite, and he seems to have risen to the height of his great calling. He was not a warrior 
like Joshua or Gideon; and there was nothing in his life of the wild and reckless valor of 
Jephtliah and Samson. He did not possess the military skill and dash of Deborah and Barak, 
but he was more than either. He was the founder of a school; he created an epoch; he was 
more than the Luther of his day. 

As a civil administrator, Samuel was equally successful. He united the tribes under his 
authority, and he united Israel once more to Jehovah. This was really his great achievement; 
this was the crowning point of his service to Israel and to God. Once more the scattered tribes 
become a nation, to the joy of all. The old rivals, Ephraim and Judah, made common cause 
against a common enemy, and even the more distant tribes gave their allegiance to Samuel, the 
last Judge, and to Saul, the first king. The loss of the Ark tended to unite all the tribes in a 
common calamity; and the return of the Ark completed the union by striking a note of hope 
in the heart of all of them. The result was that from the foot of Lebanon to the edge of the 
Desert, from the pastures of Gilead to the seacoast of Asher, the dormant religious devotion 
and patriotic enthusiasm of the people were aroused as seldom in their history. Even those 
who may have previously had but little devotion to God and much leniency toward idolatry, 
were now both rebuked and inspired by the great movements of the hour. Samuel held three 
annual sessions of justice at Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh, at which there is reason to believe all 
the tribes were represented. In his old age, his sons were installed in the judicial office, but, 
unlike their father, they were venal and corrupt. The people, therefore, desired a monarcliial 
government. Some have suggested that Moses had anticipated such an exigency, and had laid 
down regulations for the election of a sovereign. The king was not to be a foreigner; the 
independence of the country must be preserved. He was not to maintain any force of cavalry, 
lest he should attempt foreign conquests and neglect the internal development and security of 
the kingdom. The people asked for a king, avowedly that justice should be more certainly 
administered, and for a strong and permanent military force; that the king should go before 
them to fight their battles, as well as to give them just judgment. As they now had to resist 
powerful monarchies, and formidable leagues of the Philistine chieftains, the untrained national 
militia, though sufficient to quell temporary invasions of wandering tribes, could not master and 
overwhelm trained armies, with chariots and camels. Samuel's conduct was prudent in the 
extreme. He showed the people the danger of an oriental despotism, and the exactions and 
oppressions of arbitrary power, but he then left them to make their choice. 1 The popular 
feeling was strongly in favor of electing a king. The next object then was to secure the 
election. The king must be chosen from one of the southern tribes, as they were more exposed 
to inroads from powerful and implacable foes. Divine wisdom and human polity beautifully 
harmonized in the nomination and election of the first king. If a prince of Naphtali or Asher 
were chosen, the interests of Judah and Benjamin might be neglected ; if a prince of Ephraim 


1 Samuel viii, 11-19. 



SAUL ANOINTED AND CHOSEN. 


401 


or Judah were chosen, he would necessarily excite the jealousy of the rival tribe, and he might 
be in danger of exercising a domineering power over the weaker tribes. 

The choice of the first king is a most interesting event in the history of Israel, partly 
because of its influence upon the nation itself, and partly because of its relation to the history 
of monarclis in all other nations. There comes before us a youth of striking beauty, of unusual 
height, and of superb bearing. He seems to be, as he passes before us, “ every inch a king.” 1 
He is the son of a Benjamite chieftain, and he has been searching for some of his father’s asses 
which were lost. To him the thought of Samuel is directed. He is given a prominent seat at 
a feast where thirty persons are present, and Samuel proceeds privately to anoint Saul as 
Israel’s first king. 2 The young man, however, needs a course of religious training and 
instruction, and his heart is deeply moved with patriotic enthusiasm and religious devotion. 
He goes for a time to one of the schools of the prophets which Samuel seems to have insti¬ 
tuted. There instruction is given in music, poetry, patriotism, and religion. While at this 
school the character of Saul is entirely changed. It had been promised that the spirit of the 
Lord would come upon him, that he would prophesy, and that he would be so converted as to 
become another man. He mingled in the sacred dances. His former levity disappeared. His 
wondering friends ask, “ Is Saul also among the prophets ? ” 3 We are now at Mizpeh and a 
solemn assembly is attended by all the tribes. Little Benjamin is designated by lot, and Saul 
is at once received as king; not, indeed, without some opposition from some factious spirits, but 
with the approval of the great majority. 

Samuel at Gilgal assembled the people, and solemnly appealed to the whole country to 
bear witness to the justice and integrity of his administration. He invited their scrutiny, he 
defied their censure, he rebuked the people, both by his words and by a sign from heaven, for 
a thunderstorm came at the unusual time of the wheat harvest. 4 His rebuke of the people 
was caused by their innovation on the established constitution without divine authority. Then 
he surrendered his judicial authority, and proceeded to the inauguration of the king whom 
they had chosen. 

Samuel “stood between the dead and the living;” between the dead past and the living 
future. He gave up the convictions of a lifetime when he consented to the election of a king. 
The real foundation of all his reforms was laid in the moral and religious life of the people. 
He did not depend merely on his personality for the permanency of his work. He founded 
great institutions. What the founders of great colleges in England and America have done for 
their respective countries, that Samuel did for Israel. He was, as has been said, probably the 
first founder of great schools. Such schools were an absolute necessity to the training of David 
and other great leaders of the nation. Naiotli means Students’ Lodgings, and there he gathered 
the young men who were to lift Israel from her degradation into national honor and religious 
glory. The fostering of these schools was one great part of his lifework. He fostered the 
growth and extension of a system of national education. He also trained men to be Israel’s 
teachers. His example has been largely followed by enlightened Protestant ecclesiasts and 
rulers. His example explains the power of Britain, of Germany, and of America, and his 
example needs to be emphasized to-day and followed in all the future. He was one of Israel’s, 
one of antiquity’s, one of the world’s great men. Even in the closing decade of the nineteenth 
century, he stands forth worthy of honor and glory among the leaders of the great nations of 
the world. 

We have now reached the end of the period of the Judges. It was one of alternate 
slavery and cruel oppression, but all the while there was a struggle for larger liberty and for a 
grander future. Some may affirm that the Mosaic polity failed in securing the happiness and 


1 1. Samuel ix, 2. 


8 1. Samuel x, 1. 


3 1. Samuel x, 11. 


4 1. Samuel xi, 15, xii. 



462 


RESULTS OF THE MOSAIC POLITY. 


prosperity of the people. But it ought to be borne in mind that the principles of the great 
lawgiver were never fully carried out, and that the misery of the people was the result of their 
disobedience to the divine law; and it ought also to be said that, during this period of perhaps 
480 years, not more than one-quarter was jiassed under the yoke of a foreign oppression, and 
that some of the oppressions which marked this quarter were local, including but a feAV tribes, 
while the rest were comparatively peaceful and prosperous. We have, then, more than 300 
years, notwithstanding all that may be admitted regarding this wild and stormy period, that 
were, on the whole, marked by national growth and prosperity. 

See Milman’s description of the period, “History of the Jews,” Volume I, page 319. For a superb account of Samuel’s 
character and work, and especially for the rise of the prophets, and the meaning of the word, see Stanley, “Jewish Church,” 
First Series, Lectures XIX and XX. The critical and somewhat destructive remarks of Oort, Hooykaas and Kuenen, “The 
Bible for Learners,” Volume I, page 433, are suggestive. 






BOOK VII 


FROM THE RISE OF THE MONARCHY TO ITS DECLINE. 


Rev. Martyn Summerbell, D. D. 


LEWISTON, MAINE. 
























BOOK VII. 


FROM THE RISE OF THE MONARCHY TO ITS DECLINE. 


CHAPTER I. 

THE ACCESSION OF SAUL TO THE THRONE OF ISRAEL. 

AS the closing years of Samuel draw on, great changes occur, which involve the civil constitu- 
tion of Israel, and finally the whole fabric of the national life and character. As yet the 
ways of the people were simple. The land had been entered, but was still to be conquered. 
The Canaanite had been evicted from many of his fair holdings, but he still occupied points of 
vantage here and there, and years were to pass before he could be completely dislodged. The 
Philistine was in possession of a fertile tract to the south and west, but, since Samuel had 
routed him so disastrously at Mizpeh, had ceased to be a source of apprehension. The wild 
clangor of war was hushed, and the nation, aside from some sudden foray from its restless neigh¬ 
bors, was in the enjoyment of comparative peace and quietness. If a census of the population 
had been taken at this period it would have shown a count possibly of a million and three-quar¬ 
ters, 1 a material reduction from the number that came in with Joshua. That there had been loss 
instead of gain since entering the land may be accounted for by the withdrawal of the allies, 
who had come up with Moses out of Egypt, and by the decimation resulting from the protracted 
Canaanitish wars. 

The occupations of the people were grazing and the tillage of the soil, varied by a few 
handicrafts of the most primitive sort. For dwellings, they were still living under tents, or in 
the rudest of huts. For a long time we remark no attempt at building. When at length the 
era of construction commences, it is necessary to import architects and skilled workmen from 
another country; from which circumstance it is sufficiently clear that the Jew was not yet 
master of the building art. 

But the interval of peace was making the nation prosperous. In that mild climate, with 
their simplicity of manners, their wants were few, and were far more than met by the natural 
increase of flock and field, the surplus of which was accumulating a store of popular wealth. 
In this way, strangely enough, the wise rule of Samuel, which had discomfited the invader and 
given tranquility to Israel, became the occasion of its own subversion, darkening the last days of 
the grand old seer with cloud and storm. It had been foretold, under the poetical figure of 
Jeshurun the fattened ox, 2 that prosperity would render the nation restive, and, in accordance 
with the prediction, the enjoyment of peace and the increase of resources and power become 
promoters of disturbance and upheaval. At first there is the rising murmur of dissatisfaction, 

1 This estimate is based on the number of fighting men whom Saul led to Jabesh. I. Samuel xi, 7, 8. 

2 Deuteronomy xxxii, 15. 


465 





466 


ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW MONARCHY. 


which, unrestrained, presently bursts forth into wide-spread clamor for radical changes in the 
mode of government. 

As already observed in a another book, after the entrance into Canaan, the established 
rule had been by chiefs of families and tribes; while concerns of high moment lay in the hands 
of the man who for the time being stood nearest to God, who in all difficult cases inquired of 
God, and who was the Almighty’s chosen intermediary with Israel. Moses had been such a 
Lawgiver and Judge. Joshua, and Gideon, and Barak, Jephtha, and Samson, and Eli, and now 
Samuel, had been such leaders, with God as king over all. It was government not only by 
divine right, but also by divine rule, a theocracy, God ministering directly in civic affairs. In 
the eyes of the people, however, the human agent was the more conspicuous, and so, presently, 
with a strange forgetfulness of services which a later generation could better value, they call 
upon Samuel to step aside, and yield place for the appointment of a king. 

Had the demand been less general, the personal influence of God’s servant might have 
sufficed to preserve the old status; but now many influences were combining to force his consent 
to what, in effect, was a revolution, though happily no blood was spilled in bringing it to pass. 
One class of those importuning for the new order was possibly seeking change from sheer weari¬ 
ness with settled conditions, and from love of the stir and excitement that must attend the 
creation of a throne. The adventurers, no small part of the population, as subsequent events 
demonstrated, were eager for the opportunities for advancement which offer in the antechambers 
of an oriental court. The great chieftains, among whom choice of the coming monarch would 
be assumed to fall, were willing to indorse a movement in which one of their number might 
secure the coveted prize. But a still stronger motive impelled the body of the people in their 
headlong preference for royalty over the simpler forms of the theocracy. The Oriental is the 
child of custom. He clings with amazing tenacity to the ways of his neighbors and his 
ancestors. The sheik of the desert to-day wears his caftan and turban, cut and twined after 
the fashion of Father Ishmael, and gathers his household into a tent, the counterpart of 
Abraham’s, which the patriarch pitched under the terebinth in Mamre. With such pas¬ 
sion of imitativeness as an innate characteristic, it was difficult for him to differ in any 
marked degree from his neighbors. Israelitish history shows the repeatedly recurring phases 
of relapse into the customs and ways of the nations, and the explanation lies in the tendency 
of the Oriental to be like with like. And, inasmuch as the nations were governed by kings, 
there soon rose a great longing for royalty, and for a king with all his regal state and 
consequence. 

But behind all these mixed motives and selfish ambitions there lay a legitimate anxiety for 
the national welfare. It was a critical period for the Hebrew name. Dangers were beginning 
to menace on the frontier. The rich grain fields, and pasture lands overflowing with flocks, 
tempted the cupidity of the spoiler, who was all the bolder, as Israel had so long refrained from 
active warfare. On the east the children of Ammon were pressing sharply, while along the 
west and south the Philistines were multiplying their periodical forays. If peace was to be 
purchased with the sword, there must be some headship for the tribes; some central authority 
to which all should submit; a leader whom all must obey. It is thus, through the sense of 
weakness, and the need of a strong arm, that kingship takes its rise. Dryden puts it none too 
strongly in his verse, 

“Kings’ titles generally begin by force.” 

The savage who wields the heaviest club, commands the tribe. The chief who can marshal 
the clans for battle and overpower the adversary holds the preeminence, which he transmits to 
his eldest, who is presumably his strongest son. The menace of disaster is the usurper’s oppor¬ 
tunity. Rome guarded herself for generations against the tyrant by requiring her dictator, 
after saving the republic from detriment, to surrender his prerogative and become again the 



JUDGES m KINGS 


with the Distribution of the f, 

TWELVE TRIBES. T 


THE TWELVE TRIBES/// 


iaa<\ 


I Judah 

II Simeon 

III Benjamin 

IV Dan 

V Ephraim 

VI Manasseh 1 


’anah\Y)c 


IX I'uSagffiuS 


/~\(Zara ) 


KenGtfh 

V i' 


Sruaim 


immon 


Umnv 


V : Jabesh Gilead 


'othainT^^ \ 1 
cr~ ° Thebe 


Bozralr 


lOSta/ti of tl/c Ph 'ii fat tries 

11 Sa utkDfI) l ?(DaM&;04 

12 Saul* erfcnm.pmeiit;ahd 
death , IhJ tMRhjUimnee, 

(WW/Mm 

MmH or A 
mwmM 


inaim. 


Samaria/. J 

\8ICHE3I 


Supchofl>Aoh; 


Wf*f\ 

Rgmoth (gilt-ad 


^ y\ \ 1 i 

ishtS 


t NVIHo.v s 

of 

JERUSALEM 


[eft&Ji'nnujth 

\MeTPrSgQhJf 


'Jehud 


/Mm 

Wms 


Gath 0 , 

Ja0^ 


/ ~Betftlehe>/i 
* 15 * x £th(ini*- 

Y ajL Tekdagd 


^ j'Hazxjr 

■v^Bethel(Lus 

pv^ccrowt,- 

ff!e£ 7 n«s&£!_~ 

fce s __ 


'Oimzo 


Tirm iath Sez 
~~jAjafon 


Juttah 


Carrnelcc 7 

Maoniu ? 

ihemoah- 


Eimmon 


^~,^§S>eanSpSSuT 

2£*r\ 

xJERUS.U^EAI 

^Zdphim\ _ 

'zjf^Ephi-atha or 
’ % o .Bet/Ueheni 

## 


O J ^ 

(Menenatha) 


-yl(Elusd) 


Rehoboth. 


J lareseet 


oLib nah, =§=H 

cr—Lucmia^ 

^SXHlVti 

Rii/tfnon Wt 


Mlntidcla) 

s / 

f IjOboth 


j jutta ' q 

°Oannel^ 

' "> 

irRsihenidW ~ o 




Wis. o/ Sapher 


(Petra)' 


Rckam Maori 


Arad 


PALESTINE 

under the 


Arphad 























































































































araTaaJA^ 

9riJi9bnu 

aomx«A 83 oaui/ 

















HAftU I 

<roH v 18 II 
■sjir.Aiv :jlU III 
VTAdVI 
1A I / >1 I IM M v| 
aaM IV 




R BJTTA 8 




aoli l/L U>Qij{((tii))o'>0 
OB 5S 06 cl 01 


M3LlA2UH3lr 


is 


1 

--A fTfio 

\-c> 




Si: 


SC 


■ V J-* V- 

no»\L'xu^vl.)'l^ l 


0r, «0 O 


. 

,0 T “ 23a 




IS 


A3(\an£ \o 












































































































SAMUEL DEPOSED. 


467 


humble citizen. But she learned this wisdom only after endurance of the intolerable oppres¬ 
sions of the Tarquins. France sought by her Revolution to abolish the rule of kings, but the 
Revolution itself gave chance for the Three Consuls, for the First Consul, for the Emperor. 
The firm patriotism of a Washington, who was resolved that America should be self-governing, 
rendered possible the establishment of our Constitution, so admirable in its safeguards for the 
liberties of a free people. Had the Father of his Country been less virtuous, the American 
republic would have been an empire. 

These considerations assist to an understanding of the situation in the time of Samuel. In 
case of invasion from across the border, could the aged prophet lead the hosts to victory? 
AVere he to fall in battle, or be crushed in spirit by defeat, who should lift up the standard? 
Could the fate of the nation be intrusted to Joel or Abiah, Samuel’s sons, whom he had made 
judges in Beersheba ? Though blood may tell in the general average of a race, it is not every 
good man who is blessed with children after his own heart; and of these men, because of their 
bribetakings and evil conduct, the people were justly in fear . 1 And so, as perplexities multiply, 
the tide of apprehension swells, and the desire for a king extends till the impulse becomes 
resistless. By common consent, the elders of Israel assemble in Ramah, and, finding that 
they are of one mind, make formal demand of Samuel : 2 “ Behold, thou art old, and thy sons 

walk not in thy ways : now make us a king to judge us like the nations.” 

Grieved to the heart at the popular waywardness, the old man carried his burden to God, 
to be assured that the turning away was not so much from the Judge as from Jehovah. God 
had led them hitherto, and was still able to deliver them from all their enemies. Nevertheless, 
Samuel is bidden to accede to the entreaty and provide the king, whom he is to choose under 
divine direction. If a crown must be had, God must determine the man to wear it. If mon¬ 
archy must replace the theocracy, the new rule must still be theocratic, God lifting up and 
guiding the ruler. Bearing this intimation of the divine purpose from the Holy Presence, the 
prophet dismisses the tribal chieftains with the assurance, that for the hardness of their hearts 
God will give them a king, who will make their sons his servants, and their daughters his 
handmaidens, and levy upon their goods and their increase for the keeping of his captains and 
men of might. 

The revolution having been thus sanctioned, God speedily provides the king. In the 
circumstances attending this choice, it is noticeable how he indicates, both to the man himself, 
and also to all Israel as well, that it is not the counsel of the wise which controls in the matter, 
but Providence alone, which willeth to do of its own good pleasure. As for the man, he is to 
be taken from the body of the people; as the Redeemer, in the fullness of times, was to choose 
his disciples from men in the humblest walks. He is to feel keenly that nothing in himself 
commends him for this high honor. He leads no tribe and is followed by no clan. He has 
performed no act of renown. As for reputation, he is a man unknown. He does not climb 
to the throne, for when he has no thought of such elevation, God’s servant abases the throne 
to him. 

The incident which introduces Saul, the overgrown son of Kish, to the page of history 
is absurdly trivial. His father’s she-asses have gone astray, and when he has sought them far 
and vainly, the tall Benjamite comes to the prophet’s door, imploring the seer’s vision for the 
recovery of his property. It is this Saul, with his look of wistful helplessness, dependent in so 
small an affair as the tracing of the asses, whom Samuel recognizes as God’s choice for the 
kingdom. God can make the weak things of this world confound them that are mighty, and if 
Saul leans hard on God, despite his evident deficiences, he may enjoy a glorious reign. The 
prophet invites him to his feast, seats him in the place of honor, and gives him the choicest 
of the food, that which had been reserved in prophetic anticipation of his coming. On the 

1 1. Samuel viii, 3. 2 1. Samuel viii, 5. 

32 


SAUL CHOSEN AND ANOINTED KING. 


468 

morrow, as lie sets forth on liis return, Samuel accompanies him for some distance. At a con¬ 
venient place he sends the servant forward, and, after declaring to the young man the divine 
will, taking a bottle 1 of oil, he anoints him prince over God’s inheritance . 2 To impress Saul’s 
mind with the profound importance of the act, he gives him several tokens, which will certify 
that all this is of the Lord. Two men shall meet him at the sepulcher of Rachel, the mother 
of the Benjamites, with tidings of the finding of the asses, and of his father’s anxiety at his 
prolonged absence. At the Oak of Tabor 3 he will meet three men going up to God at Bethel ; 
one of them having three kids; another, three loaves of bread, and the third, a wineskin of 
wine. They are to give him two of the consecrated loaves. On approaching his home, as he 
draws nigh to Gibeah of God , 4 where there is a station garrisoned by a troop of Philistines, he 
is to meet a band of prophets coming down from the high place; and, when these are prophesy¬ 
ing, the spirit of prophecy is to come upon him, and he is to be turned into another man, and 
prophesy with the prophets. 

Minute as these predictions are, all befell according to the prophet’s word. At Rachel’s 
tomb, Saul is told that the asses have been found. At the Oak of Tabor, the man presents him 
with the two loaves, which had been destined for the altar. When at length he reaches Gibeah 
of God, and encounters the “ chain ” of prophets descending the hill, with music and religious 
dance, moved to the soul by the striking confirmations of the prophet’s speech, which corrob¬ 
orate the destiny which he has been told to expect, he is seized with a transport of religious 
ecstacy, and, rushing into the line, he lifts up his voice in an outburst of prophetic song. If 
we accept Wellliausen’s suggestion , 5 that the disorders of the time are to be credited with the 
awakening activity of prophecy among the young men, we -can readily imagine the burden of 
the company’s song to have been the woes of Israel, and the victory of God over the oppressor. 
And in such case it is not difficult to perceive how Saul, beginning to realize that he had surely 
been called of God to be leader of the host, should be lifted above his former self, and, in a 
rapture of enthusiasm, foretell the coming battles and sieges, and the discomfiture of the 
Ammonite and the Philistine. At all events, Saul prophesies with the prophets, a circumstance 
so remarkable as to give rise to a new proverb in Israel. 

But the nation is to be taught how God rules in calling whom he will to the kingdom. 
Only a few days pass, when Samuel summons the princes and elders to a great convocation at 
Mizpeh. It is a solemn religious assembly, and is opened with a sacrifice to the Lord, which is 
offered with a solemnity appropriate to the importance of the occasion. After the celebration 
of the rites and a brief address, recalling how God had always been their helper and deliverer, 
he turns to the concern for which they are assembled, the selection of a king. The mode of 
procedure emphasizes the divine superintendence. There is no nomination by the heads of 
tribes. No great lord presents himself for the suffrages of his countrymen. The whole nation, 
in the person of its representatives, appears before Samuel, beside whom stands the high priest, 
in all the dignity of his official robes, and wearing the sacred ephod. With such impressive 
auspices the lot is cast, embracing every man in Israel. So at the siege of Ai, Joshua had been 
shown the pilferer of the golden wedge and the Babylonish garment. By like decision of the 
lot, Canaan had been partitioned among the tribes. So also in a later time, after earnest prayer, 
the disciples were taught God’s will in the selection of Justus or Matthias, to take the apostle- 
ship, from which Judas by transgression fell. The names of the tribes were inscribed on tablets, 
which were deposited in an urn, and this was agitated violently until but one was left, which was 
the tablet of Benjamin. The lot had fallen on Benjamin, the smallest of all the tribes, which 
up to this time had not recovered from its almost complete extermination, in retribution for the 
sin of Gibeah, in the days of the Judges . 6 As the lots were again cast, they fell successively on 

1 “A narrow-necked vessel, from which the oil would come by drops.” — Edersheim, “Bible History,” IV, p. 41. 

2 1. Samuel x, 1. s I. Samuel x, 3. 4 So the Revision. 5 “ History of Israel,” p. 449. fi Judges xx, 35-48. 



ASSUMES THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT. 


469 


the clan of Matri, 1 on the family ol Kish, and finally, when the sons of Kish were presented, 
on Saul, the eldest, who was thus formally designated as God’s answer to the nation’s prayer. 
At the announcement of the lot, Saul is modestly missing, but by divine direction is found 
hiding among the baggage. 

A choice so foreign to every expectation carries discomfiture to the friends of the prominent 
leaders, whose claims to favor have been ignored. The people shout, “Long live the king,” but 
the acclamation lacks the hearty ring of enthusiasm. Ephraim especially, as the largest and 
most influential of the tribes, cherishes a sullen discontent, which is to burst into full flame in a 
later reign. According to oriental custom, the people lay tribute at Saul’s feet, though some, 
who have no reputation to lose, 2 offer no presents, and openly scoff at the presumption of such 
an aspirant for the throne. 

The new ruler makes no haste to assume his authority, and, with a bit of kingcraft hardly 
as yet to he expected of him, is conveniently deaf to all adverse comment; thus shrewdly escap¬ 
ing the obligation of punishing his detractors, and thereby arousing a troublesome spirit of 
enmity. Convinced that time will bring the fitting opportunity, as the people disperse to their 
homes he returns to the obscurity of his rustic occupations. 

But the exigencies of the times forbid his remaining in protracted retirement. Hardly 
a month passes, 3 when Nahash, king of Ammon, invests Jabesh, the chief town of Gilead, on 
the east side of the Jordan, with an overwhelming force. It seems that the inhabitants must 
surrender; but when they are told the barbarity of the conditions exacted by the conqueror, 
they are nerved to the last effort of despair. For Nahash insists on putting them all to the 
sword, and will spare their lives only on their submitting to his putting out their right eyes, as 
a reproach to all Israel. Scarcely daring to cherish a hope of success, and yet grasping at every 
straw, the men of Jabesh ask for seven days’ respite while calling for help, agreeing, if not 
rescued, to yield themselves to the victor’s pleasure at the end of the time. On his contemptu¬ 
ously granting their request, the men of Jabesh send swift messengers throughout the land; 
and, as the evil tidings spread, all Israel is in dismay. The towns reecho with cries of grief, 
the men joining with the women in lifting the voice of lamentation. At nightfall, when Saul 
comes, driving his yoke of oxen from the field up the hill of Gibeah, he hears the mourning of 
the people. When told of the calamity which faces the men of Jabesh, his heart swells with 
indignation. He is a Benjamite, and the men of his tribe are known far and wide as the most 
accomplished fighters of the Israelitish host. Shall Benjamin sit supinely while Jabesh, knit to 
the tribe by the maternal tie, 4 is crushed in the writhing folds of the Serpent of Ammon ? 5 In 
a blaze of righteous wrath he ceases to be the retiring herdsman, and becomes “ every inch a 
king.” Pausing not for counsel, he slays the oxen, and hewing them in pieces despatches the 
bleeding parts into all the tribes with the sharp summons, that so it shall be done to all who 
come not forth after Saul and Samuel. The nation, realizing that it has a leader, at last rises in 
its might and pours out its warriors in a veritable landsturm. Thirty thousand men of Judea, 
and 300,000 of the rest of Israel, throng into the region of Bezek, and, by a forced march, 
push on over the twenty miles between Bezek and Jabesh in three columns, to fall upon the 
Ammonitish army, just before dawn of the last day of the respite. The surprise in its com¬ 
pleteness reminds the historian of Washington’s attack on Kahl at Trenton, or of the shock of 
Bonaparte’s landing at Cannes to Louis XVIII. The Ammonite had not suspected that Israel 
would dare to fight, and these thousands pressing him from every side drive him to headlong 
panic. The besiegers scatter, with Israel in close pursuit, and Nahash, 6 their king, is slain. It 
is a great deliverance. Jabesh pours out its gratitude to the young king, and years afterward 
redeems its obligation by a service of danger and sacrifice. 

1 1. Samuel x, 21. 2 “ Sons of Belial,” I. Samuel x, 27. 3 1. Samuel xi, 1. 4 Judges xxi, 12. 

5 “Nahash ” signifies “Serpent.” 6 Josephus, “ Antiquities,” VI, v, 3. 



470 


A THEOCRATIC MONARCHY. 


But the immediate effect of the battle is to place Saul securely in his kingdom. In the 
hour of triumph Samuel proposes another national convention, to be held this time in Gilgal, 
where the gathering will be free from interference by the Philistines. The place is on the west 
of the Jordan, near Jericho; and is memorable as the first camping place of Israel, on its 
occupation of the land under Joshua, and the spot where the first Passover was observed in the 
Land of Promise. Like Mizpeli, it was a sacred gathering place; and hither the clans come in 
multitude, their hearts buoyant with a national hope, born of the recent victory. The sacred 
historian places it on record that “ all the people went to Gilgal.” The usual sacrifices are 
offered. Samuel once more reminds them of his faithfulness in service, and of God’s gracious 
providences in all their eventful past. He assures them that they can hope for prosperity only 
as they cling to the Lord, and serve him with their whole heart. If they will do this, he will 
still pray for them, and teach them the good and right way. 

But while the monarchy is thus again solemnly intrusted into the hands of Saul, it is to be 
observed that it is to be theocratic. The kingship has its limitations, which Samuel has 
recorded, and laid up 1 in the Ark of the Covenant beside the Book of the Law. Saul is not 
to govern as a despot, nor to hold the arbitrary authority of the kings of Phoenicia or Philistia. 
He is rather to be the leader of armies, and, even in the declaration of war and the prosecution 
of campaigns, to seek direction from God. 

In some degree he accepts this position, and rarely troubles himself with civil affairs. 2 He 
maintains no court, and lives in the simplest way with his household, whenever the peace of the 
country permits. In the earlier part of his reign, he is submissive to the divine leading as 
announced from the Sanctuary; and, had the depth of his religious nature been sufficient to 
counteract the impulse which seized him afterward to grasp after powers which it was not 
intended for him to exercise, his career might have been one of constantly increasing glory. 

He was an able soldier, prompt in action, and skillful in the disposition of his troops. He 
finds his country strong in numbers, but weak for want of military discipline, and weighted 
down by the growing might of Philistia on the southern border. It is a great commander who 
can rally a shepherd and farming people, and teach them to strike great blows for indepen¬ 
dence; and though it is David who finally breaks the yoke of the oppressor, we trace the 
beginning of the nationality to the inspiring leadership of Saul. 3 

1 1. Samuel x, 25. 

2 Wellhausen states the case almost too strongly when he says of Saul, “He recognized as belonging to him no other 
public function besides that of war; the internal affairs of the kingdom he permitted to remain as they had been before his 
accession.”—“History of Israel,” p. 450. 

3 “Saul and David made out of the Hebrew tribes a real people in the political sense.”—Wellhausen, “History of 
Israel," p. 413. 





CHAPTER IT. 

THE PHILISTINES, AND THEIR OVERTHROW AT MICHMASH. 

rPIIE logical consequence of the defeat of the Ammonite, and of the ratification of the king- 
J- dom at Gilgal, was the renewal of aggressive measures on the part of the Philistines, who 
were shrewd enough to foresee a decline of their ascendency unless this popular movement 
could be checked. 

This people, settled in the fertile district of the Shephelah, the great maritime plain to the 
south and west of Judea, by their thrift with the plow and their prowess with the sword had 
become great and powerful. Their barley harvests, the produce of their vineyards and olive 
groves, and the increase of their extensive sheep pastures were sources of wealth in themselves, 
to which they added by the practice of many handicrafts, and by carrying on a wide commerce 
with Egypt and Arabia. For protection in time of war they had fortified their five chief cities, 
Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath, which they constructed with such art as to enable 
them to endure the fiercest sieges. 

As their power augmented, they made increasing inroads on the territory occupied by the 
tribes, and were able to control the three principal caravan routes which traversed the country; 
Ashdod and Gaza especially being the keys to traffic with Egypt. The presence of the Philis¬ 
tine army as far north as the hill country of Gilboa, in the last days of Saul, is to be explained 
by their having followed the upper caravan line along the coast, which turned eastward through 
the rich plain of Esdraelon, skirting Gilboa and Little Hermon, and then passing down to the 
fords of the Jordan. During the rule of the Judges, Israel suffered much from the Philistines. 
As already noticed, Samuel had checked their depredations for a season by his victory at 
Mizpeh. But the truce was more apparent than real. A struggle to the death between two 
nationalities of such vigor was inevitable. So Rome and the Etruscan Yeii must battle, till 
after three and a half centuries of warfare the Etruscan stronghold is blotted from existence. 
So Rome and Carthage, though separated by the breadth of the Mediterranean, lock arms till 
Carthage falls. In the logic of events it must be the same with Philistia and Israel. Neither 
can be content till its rival yields. For the time the odds seemed in favor of Philistia. It had 
the higher civilization, which commonly overshadows the lower civilization at its side. Though 
Israel enjoyed the purer faith, Gaza and Askelon were more advanced in the industrial and 
mechanical arts. The Philistines wove fine cloths, those of Gaza being especially famous. 
Their smiths fashioned all manner of tools and weapons of war, as well as equipments for the 
soldiery. Their artisans were busied in various crafts, which the luxurious life of the towns¬ 
people easily supported. In Israel, on the contrary, such occupations dwindled, as each 
household arranged to supply its own simple needs. And Philistia had good reason for self- 
gratulation when she compared her established military organization with the feebler military 
system of the scattered tribes. Her soldiers were trained and equipped for regular service in 
the field, while Israel’s fighters were minutemen, armed as chance permitted, and helpless in 
the plains against Philistia’s horsemen and terrible war chariots. 

Upon the accession of Saul, the incursions of the Philistines into Israelitish territory 
became more frequent and formidable. They appear to have made no attempt at permanent 
occupation of the country, their policy being to intimidate and overawe a hill people for whom 
they cherished a hearty contempt. At harvest time they dispatched foraging parties, who carried 

471 


472 


PHILISTINE GARRISONS—GEBA CAPTURED. 


off the grain from the fields, 1 or, falling upon a village, seized the people to sell them as slaves, 2 
or, taking possession of commanding points, established posts 3 from which to send out predatory 
bands at pleasure. Such garrisons are mentioned as stationed at Gibeah of Saul, about three 
miles north of the hill of Jebus, which was afterward the site of Jerusalem; and at Geba and 
Michmash, which face each other as they overlook the intervening “Valley of the Acacias”— 
the Wady-es-Suweinit — in the hill country of Benjamin. 

Concerning the first ten or fifteen years following the confirmation of Saul at Gilgal, the 
sacred historian is strangely silent, evidently constructing his narrative with an eye to the 
approaching prominence of David. Still, from incidental references it is apparent that the 
terrorizing policy of Philistia was pursued with relentless vigor. By a refinement of statecraft 
they had seized the workers in metals and deported them to their own towns as slaves, thus 
disarming the nation 4 and compelling the farmer to pay tribute to their cities for the repair of 
his tools. Wellhausen is inclined to question this statement, regarding it as an unhistorical 
exaggeration; 5 but from what has been noticed, such a measure harmonizes with the general 
policy of the Philistine kings, while the Biblical statement is as explicit as language can make 
it. Meanwhile the periodical forays were conducted on an enlarging scale, till, at the mere 
rumor of a plundering expedition in force, the inhabitants of whole districts would desert their 
homes for the fastnesses of the hillside, or seek a place of safety across the Jordan. 6 

Having borne such outrages till patience had lost its virtue, Saul resolves to make a bold 
stand for his country’s life. Hastily enlisting 3,000 fighting men, he stations 2,000 along the 
heights from Bethel to Michmash, thus controlling the upper caravan road, from which an 
attack might first be expected, and the third thousand at Gibeah of Saul, the home town, under 
command of Jonathan, who has grown to manhood and is the idol of his father’s heart. 

This young prince, whom the rising spirit of independence introduces to the narrative, is 
one of the most engaging figures of Old Testament story. As with Joseph, every representation 
of the sacred historian is to his advantage. Faithful as a son through every vicissitude, loyal 
as a friend to the point of sacrifice, brave in battle, dashing in action and winsome in compan¬ 
ionship, we cannot wonder that he was idolized by the nation, and that, meeting the son of 
Jesse, the two were mated evermore. 

“ Great souls by instinct to each other turn, 

Demand alliance, and in friendship burn. ” 7 

The king in disposing his forces in such a manner as to place himself nearest the enemy, 
who must come up by the way of Bethel, and, by making Jonathan’s band a sort of home guard 
for Gibeah, apparently intended to keep his son well out of danger while he was growing into 
the discipline of a soldier; but, if so, his plans miscarried. For hardly is Jonathan installed 
over his thousand, when his resistless valor drives him to strike the first blow of the war. 

On the verge of the wady through which runs the main road from the coast to the Jordan 
valley, right across from Michmash, stands Geba, about an hour and a quarter to the north 8 of 
the point where Jonathan was stationed, a town set apart for the priests when not in service in 
the Sanctuary, and a point of strategetic importance. With an eye to this fact, the Philistines 
had made it one of their principal settlements, and had stationed here a tribute collector and a 
garrison. By a sudden assault, Jonathan overpowers the place and puts to death the officer in 
charge. 9 It is an act of high daring, and Saul, recognizing that the Philistines will accept it as 

1 1. Samuel xxiii, 1. 2 Amos i, 6. 3 1. Samuel xiii, 17, 18. 4 1. Samuel xiii, 19. 

5 “But the assertion that they had confiscated all weapons and removed all smiths, may be regarded as an unhistorical 

exaggeration.”—Wellhausen, “History of Israel,” p. 448. 6 I. Samuel xiii, 6, 7. 7 “ The Campaign,” Addison. 

8 “ Geba is only about an hour and a quarter north of Gibeah.”—Edersheim, “ Bible History,” IV, p. &4. “ Ramah and 
Gibeah were on the south, at short distances behind Geba.”—Geikie, “ Hours with the Bible,” III, p. 98. 

®Ewald, Wellhausen, and Kuenen read “governor” or “officer” instead of “garrison” in I. Samuel xiii, 3. 






THE POOL OF SILOAM. 















474 


PANIC-STRICKEN ISRAEL —DISOBEDIENCE OF SAUL. 


a challenge for retaliation, sounds the war horn, summoning all Israel to defend their homes 
against the invader. Under counsel of Samuel, he names the ancient shrine of Gilgal, the place 
where he had been confirmed in his kingdom, as the rendezvous for the army of resistance. 
Thither, after seven days, Samuel is to come to meet the king, and Saul is directed to await his 
arrival before taking any important step. 

For their part the Philistines are not idle, but promptly assemble an immense force, and 
come crowding up the difficult passes from the plain, drafting into their ranks such Israelites as 
they have captured on the way; and so move dQwn the valley of Michmash with 6,000 horse¬ 
men, 300 war chariots, and a multitude of infantrymen, whose numbers the Scripture likens 
to the sand on the seashore, and set their camp to the eastward of Beth-aven, placing their 
advance outpost on the naturally fortified heights of Michmash. 

The approach of this mighty host fills the Hebrews with consternation. How shall these 
shepherds and farmers cope with this avalanche of disciplined soldiery ? In the hopelessness of 
their cause the people scatter to hiding places in cisterns and grain pits, some not halting till 
they come to refuge in Gilead and Gad, beyond the Jordan. The general panic interferes with 
the recruiting at Gilgal. Reports arrive from the hills to the effect that the Philistines are 
sending out reconnoitering parties, preparatory to an advance. The souls of the people sink 
with terror, and some of the earlier recruits slip away from their places in the ranks. Saul, as 
military commander, feels that prompt action is necessary to forestall the complete demoraliza¬ 
tion of his army. But before he can begin operations, the sacrifices must be offered, without 
which no nation of antiquity ventured into an engagement. The king remembers Samuel’s 
explicit direction to tarry the seven days at the rendezvous, and yet his impatient spirit chafes 
at the delay. As day succeeds day he presently asks himself if he shall order the sacrifices, or 
await the coming of the prophet. 

While balancing this question of submission to the divine law, Saul is under trial of his 
faith, and stands at the crisis of his life. Gideon, who trusted in the God of his fathers, could 
dismiss thrice ten thousand warriors from his camp and yet eagerly smite the Midianites with 
only his valiant three hundred. If Saul leans on Jehovah of Hosts, what matter whether 
those against him be many or few ? But, the worse for himself, for some reason he has been 
chafing against control from the Sanctuary, and his headlong will now urges him to the 
extreme of bidding the priests begin the rites. Such a step, however, means nothing less than 
casting off the influence of Samuel, and repudiating the authority of the Tabernacle. It will 
be resistance to the divine command, and consequently a practical defection from God. 

That Saul is conscious of grave error, though, like most sinners, he will not look his 
wrong-doing in the face, is apparent from his hesitation till the last day of the seven; when, 
at his word, the bullocks are slain, and the smoke of the burnt offering drifts over the camp. 
Hardly has this breach of the divine law been committed, when the prophet comes with sharp 
rebuke. Before the peace offerings are presented at the altar he sternly asks, “ What hast thou 
done ? ” Stricken with a vague alarm the king stammers out his excuses, but they are of no 
avail. He has set his will against the will of God; as king of Israel defying the King of 
Kings. He had disobeyed the law. “ In that indifference to law,” 1 so Maurice remarks wisely, 
“ lay the seeds of arbitrary government, the pretensions of an aristocrat.” Still more, he has 
violated the tacit covenant, which had made him ruler under the theocracy. In the act he has 
separated himself from God, and so from the kingdom. At once the prophet pronounces judg¬ 
ment. Saul’s kingdom shall not continue, and God will seek another, one more after his own 
heart, and appoint him prince over Israel. With such parting condemnation, Samuel withdraws 
from the camp, leaving the chagrined and remorseful king to enjoy his new-found independence 
as best he can. 


1 “ Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament,” p. 27. 



DIVINE DELIVERANCE. 


475 


After this open breach with Samuel, Saul cannot remain in Gilgal. The rage of emotion 
must have vent in action, and he hastens up the steep valley, following the by-paths, and joins 
Jonathan, who from his station at Geba 1 is watching the foe. On numbering their fighting 
men the leaders find that they have but six hundred, though these are doubtless the bravest of 
all who had followed them. But the prospect of repelling the invasion with such a remnant is 
so hopeless, that the king and the prince royal, as they stand on a jutting crag and watch the 
gathering banners of the foe on the hillside across the valley, lift up their voices in an outburst 
of oriental lamentation. 2 

But dark as the hour might seem, God had not deserted his inheritance, and he now 
reaches out his hand in one of those mysterious interpositions, of which the history of the 
chosen people furnishes so many examples. The army of the Philistines lies on the ridge of 
the watershed, and along the upper part of the wady which falls toward Jericho. It is over¬ 
powering in numbers, but its strength ultimately appears to be its weakness. If such a multi¬ 
tude might seem to be of advantage on the open plain, here in the mountain defiles, and along 
the raggedness of the torrent beds, the greater the forces, so much greater the chances of confu¬ 
sion in action. And the nature of the host, composed as it is of regular troops, of mercenaries 
hired from the wilderness tribes, of Israelites who have been impressed into service in the last 
few days, and of slaves who could have no keen sense of loyalty to Philistia, forbids anything 
like unity of feeling or enthusiasm of purpose. Then, also, the consciousness of power and 
the confidence in the protection for the front afforded by the strong fortress of Michmash lead 
to a sense of security all the more disastrous, when for any reason it proves ill-founded. 

The position of the garrison at Michmash might well occasion confidence, as it is most 
favorable for defense. The traveler can still trace, on the northern side of the wady, the three 
mounds and the tongue of land which Josephus identifies as the outpost of the Philistines. 
The cliff falls sheer and precipitous to the defile below, which, while broader to the east, here 
contracts to a narrow gorge. Across the deep ravine and on the heights beyond appears the site 
of Geba, the post of Jonathan; but though no more than an hour away as the crow flies, the 
almost perpendicular walls of the wady forbid all communication, except by a circuitous route 
of many miles. Mr. Harper, of the Palestine Exploration Fund, has recently visited the spot, 
and reports the cliff of Michmash, while apparently inaccessible, not absolutely impassable to 
enthusiastic intrepidity. 3 

In his earnest hope to save his country, Jonathan ponders a plan for scaling this cliff and 
surprising the fortress. From all human prevision the project is immeasurably foolhardy, but 
the prince believes that it is of the Lord. To forestall any chance of opposition he confides in 
no one aside from his armor-bearer, who is to accompany him. Having made his preparation, 
he gives his mind to action, feeling, doubtless, as Bacon has wisely observed, “ In meditation all 
dangers should be seen, in execution none, unless very formidable.” In the darkness of the 
night he creeps down the south wall of the wady, crosses the interval at the bottom, threading 
his way through the inextricable maze of mounds and hummocks, impassable except to those 
perfectly familiar to the place; and, having reached the farther side, creeps cautiously up the 
rocky wall, where a single misstep would prove fatal. He times his perilous enterprise so well 
that he arrives on the plateau just as the day is breaking. 3 The sentinel on guard is unsuspi¬ 
cious of assault. Thinking the intruder to be one of the Hebrew fugitives who has grown 
weary of hiding, he gives the merry challenge for him to come up, where he will show him a 
sight. Accepting this as confirmation that his enterprise is of the Lord, Jonathan hastens to 
the summit, followed closely by his armor-bearer. Once at the top, he plies his darts and his 

1 So the Revision, following the Hebrew. 2 1. Samuel xiii, 16, Septuagint. 

3 “ It must have required a cool head and steady nerve to climb this cliff. To look at it now, it seems impossible, but it 

has been done by Major Conder and the survey party.”— 4 ' The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” p. 277. 3 Josephus, VI, vi, 3. 



476 


VALOR OF JONATHAN—INTOXICATION OF SUCCESS. 


dreaded Benjanrite sling with such impetuous ardor that twenty of the defenders fall. Eder- 
sheim accounts for Jonathan’s success by supposing the conflict to have occurred on a narrow 
ridge, where the Philistines were compelled to meet him in single file. 1 In any case, however, 
there is no resisting the force of his onset. The survivors flee in terror, and as their fear 
spreads to others a great tumult arises. Soon one of those inexplicable panics, like that which 
befell the army of Sennacherib before Samaria, and the other which kept all London under 
arms through the terrible Irish Night, after the flight of James II., 8 strikes the host, and in a 
moment it is wild with the madness of unthinking terror. Each man dreads he knows not 
what, and strikes he knows not whom. The path up the hills becomes a scene of inextricable 
confusion, the Philistines turning their arms against themselves. The drafted Israelites, seeing 
that their moment of vengeance has come, smite their oppressors. Saul, from across the wady, 
hears the clamor and leads his troops in hot pursuit. The men of Ephraim pour down from 
their pasture lands, and, taking position on the heights, hurl javelins and rocks upon the heads 
of the retreating horde. The battle becomes a flight, and the flight a rout. The struggle of 
pursuers and pursued sweeps on past Beth-aven, and down the western valley, until by night¬ 
fall the enemy has been driven some twenty miles, to take refuge, after great slaughter, behind 
the gates of Ajalon. 

It is a great victory for Israel, and has nothing to mar its triumph except the rash impre¬ 
cation of Saul, who had invoked a curse on any who should eat food that day, and which comes 
so near to costing the life of his son. In the eventide, after the people, who had been fasting 
all day, had slaughtered sheep, oxen, and calves, and, hastily cooking the flesh, had eaten and 
been refreshed, Saul was hot to resume the pursuit of the foe. But on inquiring of the Lord, 
there was no response. At once Saul summons the people to a lot, to discover where sin had 
been that day, and vowing that, though it were with himself or with his son, the guilty one 
must die. As the lot was cast, the people escape, and Saul and Jonathan are taken. The king 
demands a perfect lot between the two, and now Jonathan is taken. Saul demands of Jonathan 
to confess, and he admits, while he was hurrying in the chase, that he had dipped the tip of his 
rod in some wild honey, and had touched it to his tongue. For this light offense Saul would 
have fulfilled his impetuous oath, and have ordered the prince to death. But the people do not 
forget the hero of the day, and interpose to prevent the execution of the royal decree. So 
Jonathan is spared, doubtless to Saul’s intense relief. As to the Philistines, their disaster is so 
overwhelming that years pass before they venture on another invasion of Israelitisli soil. 

To Saul the unexpected turn of fortune brings great revulsion of feeling. He has been 
thrust into the pit of despair, but the one day has freed his country from the yoke of vassalage, 
and restored his self-confidence. True, he is parted from Samuel, and has made such rupture 
with Ahijah, the high priest, whom he brought from the Sanctuary at Nob, that there is no 
more inquiring at the Ark 3 for the rest of his reign. But why should he mourn for the priest 
more than for the prophet; or why should he trouble himself for either when victory crowns 
his standard ? At once he assumes more of the authority of a king, 4 and sets up the nucleus of 
a standing army, with its officers and captains. He places the host, the great body of the tribal 
militia, under command of his kinsman Abner, believing that this cousin was related near 
enough to himself to insure his loyalty, and yet not so near as to imperil the royal succession by 
misuse of his high dignities. With this force he engages in a series of sharp campaigns, in the 
course of which he humbles the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Idumaeans, and the Syrians of 
Zobah, whose little principality to the north had become too aggressive. Everywhere that he 
leads, success crowns his standards, and the nations are smitten with fear at this redoubtable 
king and the rising glory of his arms. 


1 Edersheixn, “ Bible History,” IV, p. 66. 2 Macaulay, England, I, x, p. 604. 

3 1. Chronicles xiii, 3. 4 “ So Saul took the kingdom.”— I. Samuel xiv, 47. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE WANING STAR OF SAUL. 

QjAUL S most important movement at this period of his power, and the one involving the 
^ most far-reaching consequences, is his expedition against the Amalekites. In its military 
aspect it is completely successful, and yet it is also his ruin, because of his continued disobe¬ 
dience to God. The Amalekites were a desert race, occupying the region of Arabia Petra. 
They roved, with their flocks and herds, from the Sinaitic wilderness to Canaan, in which, from 
the names which have lingered for ages, it seems that they must at one time have had strong 
foothold. They opposed the march from Egypt, and Joshua was despatched against them and 
fought them all day long, while Moses watched the varying battle from the cliff of Horeb. 
Notwithstanding this defeat, they persisted in their depredations, giving the tribes no respite 
from their guerrilla assaults. Just before the crossing into the Promised Land, in union with 
the Canaanites, they inflicted a severe repulse on Israel at Hormah. The people of God had 
no more bitter or inveterate foe than these Bedouin marauders, who must at last have been 
perpetrating acts of aggravating atrocity beyond what appears in the record; for Moses had 
made vow of unceasing war 1 with Amalek. There is also allusion to the enmity of this nation 
in Deuteronomy, 2 where Israel is bidden, when it has secured its rest in the Lord’s land, to blot 
out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. 

Toward the last days of Samuel — the history furnishes no clue for accuracy in date — it 
appears that the tribe had renewed hostilities, this time from the south, in the territory of 
Judea. Roused by tidings of the bloody deeds of the Amalekite king, the aged prophet 
emerges from his retreat at Ramah, and calls upon Saul to recognize his heritage of vengeance 
against the ancient enemy, and bidding him to make Amalek a Cherem , 3 an object devoted to 
utter destruction. That Saul may not mistake his meaning, the prophet specifies that he slay 
both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. Nothing of Amalek 
that breathed was to be left alive. 

The king accepts the commission and quickly gathers an army of over 200,000 fighting 
men, 10,000 of them being men of Judea, who from this time forth begin to appear more 
prominently in the national life. 4 With this enthusiastic army he makes a forced march to the 
principal city of his adversary, no trace of which now remains. Here he lies in wait in a 
convenient valley, while he performs an act of gratitude to the Kenites. Remembering their 
former kindnesses to Israel, he bids them withdraw from the Amalekites, with whom their 
nomadic habits had brought them into association. When the Kenites are well away, he rises 
upon his foe with such swift attack as to forbid successful resistance. The Amalekites are 
completely overthrown; their Agag, 5 or king, falls into the hands of Saul, and the fleeing 
remnant of their command is hotly pursued to the Isthmus of Suez, on the way toward Egypt. 

The booty that falls to the lot of Israel in flocks and herds is immense, and rouses another 
conflict in the heart of Saul. He desires to commemorate his signal victory with suitable 
memorials, and would have some trophies to display on his return to the home cities. Shall he 

1 Exodus xvii, 14-16. 2 * Deuteronomy xxv, 19. 8 1. Samuel xv, 3. 

4 “Through Saul, Judea entered definitely into the history of Israel; it belonged to his kingdom, and it, more than 

most others, supplied him with energetic and faithful supporters.”—Wellhausen, “ History of Israel,” p. 451. 

6 Agag was a common title of the Amalekite kings. See Hengstenberg, “ Pentateuch,” II, p. 307. Compare the Aga, 

the commander of the Janizaries, and also Pharaoh, Kaiser, and Tsar. 



478 


GRIEVOUS SIN OF SAUL. 


execute the command of “ Devotion,” slaying the Agag, and destroying all this wealth of oxen, 
and cattle, and sheep; or, may he not preserve them, under pretext of offering them to the 
Lord ? Like another who asks, “ Why was this waste of the ointment made ? ” he prefers his 
own will to that of God. So he returns from his expedition, setting up a trophy on the way 
at Carmel, a city in the mountains of Judea, and goes on to Gilgal with his wealth of spoil, 
willing, like many another sinner, to offer a little to God, if so he may palliate his holding the 
lion’s share for his own uses. 

But this breach of the divine command is more flagrant than the other, when the king 
failed to await the prophet’s coming before kindling the sacrifice. In Hamah, Samuel has a 
vision in the night season. Once more God declares that Saul has turned away from his 
commandment, and has forfeited the sovereignty. The prophet cries in supplicating protest all 
the night, but the judgment stands. This king is perverse in his disobedience, and God must 
withdraw from him. Bearing this direful message, Samuel visits Saul at Gilgal, where the 
king is already making the altars smoke with the offerings of cattle that should never have left 
the desert. Arriving, Samuel utters his stern command, “ What meaneth this bleating of the 
sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen, which I hear ? ” The king explains that the 
people are sacrificing the best of the sheep and the oxen to Samuel’s God, and that the rest he 
has utterly destroyed. It is a vain excuse. The favor of God cannot be so easily purchased. 
As the prophet declares, “ to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” 
The king’s sin is great; his perversity, beyond remedy. Samuel rends away the veil of 
pretexts with which Saul has covered his frowardness. His rebellion against God is as iniq¬ 
uitous as divination, and his stubbornness as base as if he had bowed the knee to teraphim and 
to the idols of the heathen. This time there can be no reprieve, and the kingdom must pass 
from a hand so unworthy. 

At this word there follows one of the most dramatic scenes in history. The king, humil¬ 
iated, pleads with the prophet, confessing his sin, and virtually beseeching yet another trial. 
But Samuel turns away. To detain him the king catches hold of the skirt of his robe, but 
there is no yielding, and the robe is rent in his hand. It is a prophecy, which Samuel inter¬ 
prets. God has rent the kingdom from Saul and given it to one near him, who is a better man 
than he. For a king the circumstance is immeasurably painful. If the prophet retires in this 
mood, Saul is dishonored publicly before his people. Will not Samuel tarry at least till the 
king has prostrated himself in worship, and so do him some honor in the sight of his lords and 
retainers ? To this Samuel consents. But when Saul’s devotions are concluded, Samuel calls 
for the Agag to be brought to the altar, and there saves the nation from responsibility for the 
violated vow by hewing the captive to pieces with his own hand. It is a terrible retribution, 
one which seems unnecessary to our modern sensibilities, cultured as they have been under the 
sweet teachings of the Gospel, and yet it was quite in keeping with the rude justice of the time. 
Having given this practical rebuke for the king’s disregard of the Cherem , for the second time 
Samuel leaves Saul in Gilgal; and though he continues to mourn for the man he once 
anointed, he comes to his presence no more. 

And now a dark change settles down upon the fortunes of Saul. The campaign against 
Amalek marks the summit of his renown. Other victories crown the arms of the nation, but 
the people sing the praises of other chieftains. He has braved the King of Kings, and his soul 
is clouded with distrust, which soon passes into a brooding melancholy. The kingdom is to be 
intrusted to another, and he questions within himself who that other may be. He knows 
nothing of Samuel’s going down to Bethlehem and of his secret anointing of the lad David, 
the youngest son of Jesse, but he realizes that the parting word of the prophet was no idle 
threat. He is conscious that the ban of God has fallen. Daily he grows more querulous, and 
subject to fits of brooding sadness, in which he becomes suspicious of his most loyal servants, 



W. 13. SCOTT. 


DAVID PLAYING BEFORE SAUL 


































































































480 


DAVID BECOMES COURT MINSTREL. 


and doubts the fidelity of liis truest friends. Tlie Bible represents bis condition as tbe product 
of bis folly, for tbe occasion of bis trouble is “ an evil spirit from tbe Lord.” 1 

Tbe courtiers are distressed at their king’s sorrow, and suggest that be try tbe soothing 
effect of music to distract his mind from care. Tbe proposition was wise. Others who have 
experienced this strain of melancholy have been relieved, like Luther, by playing on the flute, 
or, like Abraham Lincoln, by resolutely turning the mind into another channel. When Boswell 
once remarked to Dr. Johnson that he might rid himself of disturbing thoughts by thinking 
them down, the grim philosopher replied, “ To attempt to think them down is madness.” 2 His 
specific was rather a book, or a course in chemistry, or even a course in rope dancing. It is 
said that Philip Y. of Spain was cured of a mental disorder by the repeated playing of a skilled 
musician. And so search is made for a harper, and the one whose fame has already reached 
the farthest for “ cunning in playing ” is the young shepherd of Bethlehem. The list of his 
virtues as reported to the king shows that already, though scarcely more than in his eighteenth 
or nineteenth year, he betrays the marks of future greatness. For besides his skill in music 
and his beauty of person, he is described as a mighty man of valor, a man of war, and prudent 
in business. 3 With that urgency of the oriental rule which regards the will of the throne 
as overriding all private concerns, the messenger is dispatched with peremptory summons for 
Jesse to send David, his son, who was with the sheep. 

Taking his gift in hand, without which no one ventures before an oriental despot, David 
presents himself to Saul at Gibeah. We are to think of him at this time as a young lad, on the 
verge of manhood, ruddy, and of frank and open countenance. He has already fought with 
wild beasts in close encounter; when, as with Samson, the Lord was with him so manifestly 
as to give him a profound sense of the divine watchcare, as well as renown with the people. 
But most of all, his communion with nature had stimulated his natural feeling, and given him 
that appreciation of beauty in thought and expression which characterizes the poet, who is 
born, not made. Before this time he has written some of those sublime compositions, which, 
in the psalter, are the vehicle for the raptest devotion and the utterance of the most exalted 
aspiration of the ages. 

His music, as he stands playing before the king, is the blended song of the psalm and the 
rhythm of the harp in sweet accompaniment. It is a touching sight—the gloomy king sitting 
sunken in morbid fancies, and the bright youth, whose fortunes henceforth are to be so 
inextricably interwoven with those of Saul, touching his harp, and singing, possibly, 4 

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want, 

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures : 

He leadeth me beside the still waters ; — 

or, 

Q Lord, my God, in thee do I put my trust : 

Save me from all them that pursue me, and deliver me : 

Lest he tear my soul like a lion, 

Rending it in pieces, while there is none to deliver. 

At the sound of that fresh young voice, breathing out the accents of such confident trust in 
God, the smile returns to the king’s face, and cheer to his heart. It soon appears that the 
singer is a necessity in the court, and David is established as court minstrel, being summoned 
from Bethlehem at each recurrence of Saul’s malady to charm away the madness. 

But once more the blast of the war horn is heard in the land, for the Philistines are press¬ 
ing up the hill passes, and presently take the field with a strong force, marching up the Wady 
of Elali, or “ The Terebinth,” and camping at a place called Eplies Dammin — “ The End of 

1 1. Samuel xvi, 14. 2 Boswell’s “ Johnson,” p. 277. 8 1. Samuel xvi, 18, Revision in margin. 

4 The Seventh and Twenty-third Psalms are among those assigned by critics to the earliest period of David’s muse. 




TRIUMPH OF DAVID 



































































482 


COMBAT BETWEEN GOLIATH AND DAVID. 


Bloodshed.” At this point the plain, which to the east and west is almost a mile between the 
hills, narrows by the jutting out of rounded knobs or crags from the northern side to a space of 
about a quarter of a mile in breadth, while through the plain runs a deep channel cut by the 
winter torrents, which Major Conder describes as of some twenty feet wide, and about twelve 
feet deep, its sides strewn with pebbles rounded by the action of primeval waters. 

The Philistines post themselves on the hills to the south, while Saul takes position with 
his regular force of 3,000, and such volunteers as he can muster, on the crags to the north 
of the valley. Here, though the hostile armies face each other across the plain, there is 
constant provocation on the part of the enemy, but no fighting. The Philistines have put 
forward a champion, Goliath by name, a descendant of the old Anakim, whose reputation had 
filled the Israelites with such superstitious terror. This giant advances daily, uttering taunts of 
cowardice, and challenging the command of Saul to provide a champion to meet him in single 
combat, and so settle the issues of the war. Tradition has preserved the story of the complete¬ 
ness of his martial array — his gleaming helmet; his coat of mail, as heavy of itself as a 
common man; his brazen greaves, protecting his massive legs, and liis mighty shield, carried by 
his esquire, or armor-bearer. His spear was like a weaver’s beam, and the iron head upon it, a 
mass of metal weighing from seventeen to eighteen pounds. Crossing the torrent bed, and 
coming over the plain to the foot of the hills below the camp of Saul, he abuses the Hebrews, 
covering them and their parents with the coarsest insults. He boasts of his own deeds of 
prowess, asserting that he was the slayer of Hophni and Phineas, the two sons of Eli, and that 
his hand had captured the Sacred Ark. 1 

The sight of the man fills the camp of Saul with dismay. The king offers princely 
rewards to anyone who will engage and slay the giant—freedom from military duty, exemption 
from taxation, great riches and one of his daughters for a wife—but the bravest of the host 
shrink from the encounter as courting inevitable death. And so the days glide on into weeks, 
with the daily challenge, and the deepening sense of humiliating helplessness burdening the 
heart of Saul. 

While affairs are at this pass, Jesse sends David to the camp with food for his three elder 
brothers, who are among the soldiers. On arriving at the wagons, which are drawn up 
about the outer line as a barricade, he hears the war cry; and, leaving his provisions with the 
keeper of the wagon train, hurries to the front. There he hears the challenge of the champion, 
learns of the dread which he has inspired, and makes the quick decision to offer himself as the 
defender of the honor of Israel. The scoffs of Eliab, his elder brother, do not alter this deter¬ 
mination. He knows his own weakness, but he trusts in God, who had delivered him from 
the lion and the bear, to deliver him out of the hand of the Philistine. 

Saul offers him his own armor, but he wisely trusts rather to the weapons to which he has 
been used from childhood, and to the God of battles. The soldiers from the hilltop watch him 
anxiously as he descends to the plain, clad in his simple shepherd’s garb, and armed only with 
his staff and his trusty sling. The Philistine was returning to his camp, and, having crossed the 
gully, was advancing over the level ground to the south, when the lad, who had descended into 
the torrent bed, and had chosen five smooth stones from the bank where they abound, comes up 
behind him, attracting his attention by shouts of defiance. The giant, glancing about and 
observing his insignificant adversary, disdains to compete with a child, who comes armed with a 
shepherd’s stick, as if to fight with a dog, and reviles David by his gods. 

Indeed, to all human seeming, it was a preposterously one-sided combat. Everything 
promised victory to the Philistine—his over-mastering muscular force, his military discipline 
and his long experience in war. And yet David’s confidence was not ill-grounded. In ancient 
warfare the sling was a formidable weapon, and the men of Benjamin were so trained from 


1 Chaldee Targum on I. Samuel iv, 11. 



A VICTORY OF FAITH. 


483 


childhood, as to sling stones at an hair’s breadth and not miss; 1 and David, who had used the 
weapon first as a toy, and afterward as a defense from the wild beast, was as expert as they. 
With his sling he could fight at long range, while his adversary must be out of action till 
he could close with his lighter antagonist; and this the youth’s superior agility could altogether 
forbid. 

Confiding thus in himself and in the God of Israel, the lad runs swiftly toward his foe, 
meanwhile fitting a stone to the sling. Still running, as the giant turns to come to closer 
action, he hurls the missile, which, grazing the edge of Goliath’s helmet, smites him full in the 
forehead, and fells him, stunned, to the ground. Seizing the ponderous sword of his victim, 
David strikes off the champion’s head. 

Overcome with terror at this unexpected catastrophe, the bands of 'the Philistines flee 
in disorder, Saul pursuing them with great slaughter to the fenced cities of Ekron and Gath. 
Josephus, summing up the loss of the enemy on this eventful day, puts it as 30,000 killed, with 
double that number wounded. 2 

The Septuagint Bible has a psalm at the end of the Psalter, which David may have 
composed at this time. It purports to be of his own writing, and outside the number; when he 
fought the single combat with Goliath. 

“ I was small among my brethren, and the youngest in my father’s house. 

I was feeding my father’s sheep. 

My hands made a harp, and my fingers fitted a psaltery. 

And who shall tell it to my Lord ? 

He is the Lord, he heareth. 

He sent his messenger, and took me from my father’s flocks, and anointed me with the oil of his 
anointing. 

My brethren were beautiful and tall, but the Lord was not well pleased with them. 

I went out to meet the Philistine, and he cursed me by his idols; 

But I drew his own sword and beheaded him, and took away the reproach from the Children of 
Israel.” 

If fortunate for Israel, the killing of Goliath was no less fortunate for David, as it elevated 
him at a bound as the national hero. He had freed his country from a dreaded foe, and had 
also attempted the impossible with splendid courage, and had succeeded triumphantly. At once 
he is received into the tent of Saul, where Jonathan, who is now returned, embraces him, 
Taking off his own mantle, sword and girdle, the generous hearted prince presents them with 
his bow to David as a mark of special favor. From that instant there sprang up the most 
delightful companionship between Jonathan and the young man, whom Saul first made armor- 
bearer, and soon captain of a thousand, and then commander of his bodyguard. Both were 
true hearted, noble in spirit, and young. They were sufficiently unlike, so that each could 
help the other, and yet they were like enough to love. In all the vicissitudes that followed, 
their compact of friendship held sacredly. Even when Jonathan finally realized that David 
must ultimately take his place as successor of Saul, he does not alter his allegiance to his friend. 
Kenan has said, referring to John the Baptist, that “ Youth is capable of any sacrifice,” but 
here much more than youth was involved. It was a question between a throne and a soul’s 
honor, and it will be remembered to Jonathan’s favor that he held his pledge to David 
inviolate. In the beautiful words of Scripture, “And it came to pass .... that the soul 
of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” 3 

The great victory, however, does not relieve the mind of Saul, but rather gives him fresh 
occasion for suspicions and forebodings. He cannot make allowance for the enthusiasms of the 
triumph, and, when the women at the villages meet the returning soldiers with the joyful shout, 
“Saul hath slain his thousands and David his ten thousands,” he is consumed with burning 


Judges xx, 16. 


2 Josephus, “ Antiquities,” VI, ix, 5. 


3 1. Samuel xviii, 1. 



484 


TREACHERY AND JEALOUSY OF SAUL. 


jealousy. At last lie has found the man, who may grow into a possible rival. For a season he 
conceals the bitterness of his envy and seats David at his own table. He grants him many 
kindnesses, and, when the darker mood strikes him, suffers the minstrel to take his harp and 
drive the shadows from his brow as before with a song. But Saul’s madness eats its way into 
his heart like smothered fire, to burst forth presently in raging fury. Fingering his javelin one 
day as David is singing, he suddenly lifts it for a cast, to pin the harper to the wall. By a 
quick turn David escapes the thrust, and at once leaves the place. 

The open assault failing, the king in his gloomy hatred lays hidden schemes to ensnare his 
servant, whose chief offense is that he is grown too popular. He promises him Merab, his 
daughter, to wife; but in the hope that he may be slain in the venture, he demands as dowry 
proofs that he has' slain an hundred Philistines, setting for the matter a narrow time limit. 
Not hesitating more than Jacob to win his bride a second time, he sallies forth with his men, 
to return before the expiration of the time with double the number required. On claiming 
the princess, David learns that Saul has treacherously married her to another, no doubt with 
the design of stirring up strife between the men, and so of disposing of David indirectly. How¬ 
ever the young courtier may feel respecting the breach of royal honor, he is wise enough to 
hold his peace, and soon Saul in a manner redeems his pledge by giving him Michal, a 
younger daughter, who from the moment that David came to Gibeah from the battle has been 
passionately enamored with him. 

Married to Michal, who proves a most devoted wife, and with Jonathan to watch for his 
interests with faithful eye, he baffles all the plots that are laid against him. Then once more 
the wrath of Saul, all the more desperate because so often defeated, bursts forth in open violence. 
This time the javelin, hurled with all the force of the royal hand, barely grazes its intended 
mark, and stands quivering in the wall, while David slips away to his house on the battlements. 

There Michal brings him tidings that the king is fixed in purpose to kill him, as watchers 
have been set before the house, with orders to slay him as he comes forth in the morning. Per¬ 
ceiving that he can no longer trust himself at the court, he resolves to escape; and so, like the 
Apostle of the Gentiles at Damascus, he is let down over the wall by night, and hastens away to 
Samuel at Ramah. 

When Saul learns that he is at Ramah, he sends men to apprehend him, without regard for 
the sacredness of the ancient Sanctuary. But they also are prevented from doing the fugitive 
harm, for when they approach the town and hear the song of the prophets, they join in the 
chant and forget the king’s commission. After having despatched a second, and then a third 
band, to whom the same thing occurs, Saul takes the affair into his own hands. But on coming 
to the cluster of huts, where the young prophets are housed, the spirit of God descends upon 
him. He, too, forgets his bloody errand and joins in the weird chant before Samuel. In his 
frenzied excitement, he tears off his outer robe, and ends by falling into a trance, in which state 
he lies through the day and the night following; and so, for a second time, Saul is found among 
the prophets. 

After his recovery the king returns to Gibeah, balked of his prey, and seemingly in a 
. quieter mood; but David is convinced that, unless Saul be really his friend, he must not imperil 
the safety of the prophets by biding under their protection. He, therefore, makes a secret visit 
to Jonathan, who is only too willing to engage to fathom his father’s purpose. 

In this the prince royal has not long to wait, for Saul’s furious disposition soon unmasks 
itself. A solemn religious feast was held on the day of the new moon, at which all the king’s 
household were expected to be present. On assembling, Saul marks the absence of David, and 
passes it in silence. The second day, the place being still vacant, Saul makes inquiry for the 
captain of his guard; and when Jonathan offers excuse for his friend the king breaks out into 
the wildest invective against the prince. He declares his son to be in conspiracy against him, 


DAVID AIV OUTLAW. 


485 


and lifting his javelin hurls it at him with all his force. Barely escaping the missile, Jonathan 
hastens from the board, and meets his friend at their trysting place, near the pile of stones that 
went by the name of Esel. Here the two mingle their tears and vows, pledging each other once 
more their fealty in the name of the Lord, for themselves and their children forever. And so 
they part, friends still, whatever their fortunes; and holding each other, though separate, in the 
tenderest remembrance. 


CHAPTER IV. 

SAUL’S LATER YEARS AND DEATH. 

VEARS now pass while David lives in a condition of outlawry. As he has no refuge in 
-L Israel, he first finds protection with Achish, king of Gath; having previously visited the 
Tabernacle at Hob and secured the sword of Goliath, which had been placed there as a trophy. 
But when the attendants of Achish discover his identity, he finds that his life is again in peril. 
Remembering, however, the superstitious veneration of the Oriental for the deranged, which, 
strangely enough, is shared by the North American Indian, he feigns madness, and so makes 
his home for a time among his former enemies. 

On learning at length that he has friends about his old home, he returns to Judea, and 
conceals himself in the Cave of Adullam, in the limestone region near Bethlehem. Here he is 
joined by his family, and by others like himself, who were in fear of Saul. Among these are 
the three sons of Zeruiali, Joah, Abishai, and Asahel, men of might, who were to become famous 
captains in David’s long series of wars. 

At the head of such a body of fierce and determined men it was easy to maintain himself 
by forays on the Philistine crops and villagers, and by the contributions of supplies which 
neighboring Israelites were glad to bring in return for protection from the common enemy. 
When, however, his band had grown too great, and the pursuit of Saul had become too hot for 
him to continue in these familiar haunts, he retired successively to the neighborhood of Engedi, 
that bright spot, which has remained in all its pristine freshness on the desolate border of the 
Dead Sea; to the thicket of Hareth, in the hill country of Judea; and to the wilderness of 
Zipli, which, some four miles below Hebron, though now bare and desolate, was then well 
wooded and offered a place of temporary refuge. 

It was while David was at Adullam that we meet that beautiful incident of the well at 
Bethlehem. The time was the harvesting, and a body of Philistines was encamped in the Yale 
of the Giants. One day the chieftain expressed a wish for a draught of water from the well near 
the gate of his native village. This water was of such repute that later Solomon carried it by a 
conduit, constructed at immense expense, into his capital. Such was the devotion of his men 
that David’s slightest wish was law. At the imminent risk of their lives, the three mightiest of 
the band, Abishai at the head, broke through the ranks of the enemy, and returned with the 
water which they had drawn. 1 But David could not take the draught, won at such price, and, 


1 II. Samuel xxiii, 13-17; I. Chronicles xi, 15-22. 




486 


SAUL'S SLAUGHTER OF THE PRLESTS. 


with magnanimity that was princely in its recognition of noble service, poured the precious 
water on the ground, as an offering to the Lord. 

«‘ With deep emotion David took 

From their red hands the cup, 

Cast on its stains a shuddering look, 

And held it heavenward up. 

‘I prize your boon,’ exclaimed the king, 

‘But dare not taste the draught you bring.’ 

‘To heaven the glorious spoil is due, 

And his the offering be, 

Whose arm has borne you safely through, 

My brave, but reckless three ! ’ ” 

So Henry Francis Lyte sweetly relates the tale and makes it the allegory of another 
Bethlehem, and a well of living water, with no foe to bar the yearning soul. 

‘ ‘ Oh, did we thirst as David then, 

For this diviner spring, 

Had we the zeal of David’s men 
To please a higher king, 

What precious draughts we there might drain, 

What holy triumphs daily gain.” 

Meanwhile the fury of Saul grows more relentless, as he has no minstrel hand to touch the 
harp, and as David still keeps beyond the reach of his arm. On learning that the fugitive had 
visited the High Priest Ahimelech, in the Tabernacle at Nob, and had received assistance, he 
summoned him and his priests, eighty-five in all, to Gibeali, where he charged them with con¬ 
spiring against his kingdom. Their protests that they had known David as Saul’s faithful 
servant are not accepted, and he bade his guardsmen slay them all. They are shocked at 
thought of such a monstrous deed and act of audacious sacrilege, and refuse to touch the Lord’s 
anointed. But Doeg, the Idumean hireling, who had no regard for the religious traditions of 
Israel, and scrupled at nothing in subservience to the king, drew his sword, and calling his men, 
cut them down. As if this were not sufficient to fill the measure of iniquity to the brim, he 
hastened to Nob, and there put to death every living thing—men, women, children, and cattle; 
thus in one fell swoop almost blotting the race of Ithamar from the face of the earth. Edey- 
sheim draws a parallel in his “ Bible History ” between the massacre at Nob, and that of the 
children at Bethlehem, Herod the Great having been, like Doeg, an Idumean by descent. 1 
One only, Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, escapes to David, bearing the sacred ephod. Thus 
through the dark sin of Saul, David is given a recognized priest, and henceforth possesses the 
dignity arising from opportunity to consult the Holy Oracle. 

In this world evil works seldom go singly, and the slaughter of the priests at Nob impels 
the king to undertake another crime of malignant atrocity. He has broken with the priests as 
well as with the prophets, and yet he has prevailed on Zadok, the son of Ahitub, to serve as his 
priest, and so makes for him a Sanctuary. But no priest could serve at Nob after it had been 
defiled by such ruthless slaughter of his caste, and some other site must be provided. In this 
exigency Saul’s mind turns to the Gibeonites, who were holding an eminence some three or four 
miles to the north of Nob. This people were Hivites, whose fathers had made a covenant with 
Israel at the time of the invasion under Joshua. Regardless of this sacred compact, the king 
sends Doeg, his red right hand, to clear the ground for the new Sanctuary by seizure of the 
lands of the Gibeonites and their allied villages, and with orders to put out of the way any 


1 Ederslieim, “Bible History,” IV, p. 120. 



MAGNANIMOUS LOYALTY OF DAVID. 


487 


attempting to resist the mandate. Like many another misdoing, it returned in the fullness of 
time to plague the inventor’s posterity. 1 

But all this while Saul is swift in his pursuit of David, whom he hunts, in the other’s 
graphic phrase, “ as one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains.” Nothing in history more 
forcibly illustrates the wretched blindness of ill-tempered hatred. The rancorous passion of 
Saul stands out all the more darkly because of the gentle loyalty and merciful magnanimity of 
David, who, repeatedly, when he holds the king’s life in his hands, will not lift a finger against 
the Lord’s anointed. Once, while Saul is following him in the region of Engedi, and the 
rocks are covered with the king’s men, Saul enters a gloomy cave alone, where David and 
his men are hiding. The fugitive has the ruler of the nation at his mercy, and his men urge 
him to seize the providential opportunity to bring termination to his life of danger. But his 
heart cleaves to Saul, and he cannot act the part of a traitor. Silently he creeps up in the 
darkness and cuts off a bit of the king’s mantle with his dagger as a witness that he has been 
more merciful than Saul. Presently, on Saul’s retiring, he comes forth on the hillside, and, 
showing the piece of the king’s skirt, bids Saul judge of his innocence of evil purpose, since he 
has not harmed him, when he was so wholly in his power. The king is touched by this 
evidence of generosity, of which he knows that he himself would have been incapable, and 
with tears he confesses that his son David is the more righteous man. Granting that the 
kingdom is to be established in the hand of his vassal, he begs him to swear not to cut off his 
children after him, or destroy his name from his father’s house. 2 

If for a moment Saul’s better nature triumphed, the rising fortunes of David, whose band 
is constantly augmenting, stir his jealousy afresh, and he again takes the field with a large 
force, which is under direct command of Abner. They follow David to the Negeb, the south 
country, and are there posted in a regular camp. Thither, in the dead of night, David enters 
with Abishai, and, stooping over the sleeping king, they carry away the heavy spear, which 
was always with him, and the cruse of water from his side, returning after their perilous 
exploit to the other side of the deep ravine. In the morning David calls to Abner from the 
hilltop, a great way off, and reproaches him for not having guarded the king’s person better, 
and once more shows Saul how he had held his lord’s life precious. And so again Saul 
confesses his folly, and withdraws his army, promising to do his servant no harm. 

From these incidents we read the simple sincerity of David’s character as in an open book. 
He is to be king, for God has called him to. the throne; but he will not hasten the moment of 
his accession by a single overt act. At any time he could have kindled the blaze of civil war, 
but he would not do such wrong to his king or to his Lord, and is content merely with 
protecting his life against secret plot and open violence. From first to last, though Saul pursues 
him with relentless fury, he is the loyal subject, his heart full of love to his sovereign. We 
feel that BroAvning fits the truth of David’s purpose, when he makes him say, in Saul: 

“See the king — I would help him but cannot, the wishes fall through, 

Could I wrestle to raise him from sorrow, grow poor to enrich, 

To fill up his life, I would — knowing which, 

I know that my service is perfect.” 

While David is in the wilderness of Ziph he has his last tender meeting with Jonathan, 
who comes to comfort him and to assure him that he will be king after Saul. With a 
generosity that we may name princely, though princes seldom possess the like, he is glad of 
the prospective elevation of his friend, and will be content to be next after him, whom he knows 
to be the stronger man. 

Two other events mark this period; the death of the aged Samuel, for whom all Israel 
mourns, and who is buried as an especial honor within the limits of Ramali; and David’s 


II. Samuel xxi, 1-5. 


2 1. Samuel xxiv. 



488 


LIFE OF DAVID IN PHILISTIA. 


espousal of Abigail, widow of the rich Nabal. Though this marriage proves the rise of our 
fugitive’s fortunes, it is also the beginning of many miseries, which are inseparable from the 
polygamous relation, even in countries where it has the sanction of established custom. 

But now David’s life takes on a new phase. He cannot remain on unfriendly terms with 
both Saul and the Philistines, or he will be ultimately crushed as between the upper and the 
nether millstones. Saul has discarded his friendship, and so he is driven to make terms with 
Achish, king of Gath, resolving in his inmost soul to do no harm to the king of Israel, whose 
authority he has always scrupulously acknowledged. Achish receives him kindly and assigns 
him a city — Ziglag, a border town to the south, on the edge of the desert. Hither he leads his 
band, now grown to 600 strong, and occupies himself in repelling the Amalekites and other 
pillagers, who have been making too free with the frontier villages of Judea. 

For nearly a year and a half he pursues this life, when he is summoned to join the Philis¬ 
tines in a great movement on the territories of Saul. It is their plan to follow the caravan road 
northward, till it turns across the extensive plain of Esdraelon; for they realize that they can 
employ their war chariots to better advantage in the open country than in the tortuous defiles of 
the hills, where they have suffered so many disastrous defeats. 

It is an indication of the shrewdness of David’s character that his conduct at Ziglag has 
won the confidence of Achish so far that he offers him command of his bodyguard; but so fixed 
is his determination not to injure Saul, that, while he responds to the summons to join the 
Philistines, he keeps well to the rear of their army. It may have been his persistence in this 
course which aroused the suspicions of the lords of the Philistines. Recalling the fame of his 
former exploits while contending with them, they angrily demand of Achish that he send this 
ally of his away, lest he turn against them in the battle. 

Receiving gladly his dismissal, which Achish was reluctant to give, he returns to Ziglag to 
find that his town has been plundered by a band of Amalekites, and that all the women and 
children have been captured and carried into the desert. The joy of the return is converted 
into lamentation, until Abiathar, the high priest, assures them from the Lord that the effort at 
rescue will be successful. No time is lost in organizing the pursuit. On the third day the 
marauders are overtaken, surprised and defeated. All the women, children, and cattle are 
recovered, and the vast possessions of the Amalekites fall into the hands of David. The store 
of booty is so great, after rewarding his own men for their valor, that David is still able to 
distribute rich presents to the towns which have been befriending him in his season of 
adversity. 

Meanwhile momentous events have been occurring in the north. On hearing of the 
preparations of the Philistines, Saul had hurriedly raised an army and taken a position to the 
east of the great plain, near Mount Gilboa. But his men have neither the equipment nor the 
discipline of the enemy, and the chances of battle are ominous. And yet, had the king in this 
crisis been valiant and confident, he might have taken the foe by surprise, and overcome him by 
the suddenness of the blow. But with Saul all the buoyancy of life is past. As the hour of 
conflict approaches, his spirit grows heavy, and he is as one whose cause is already lost. In his 
distress he calls upon God, whom he has defied; but God does not reply. There is no 
assurance by dream, by Urim, nor by voice of prophet. Having forfeited the benefits of 
communion with God, as with others in like case, he has recourse to the arts of superstition. 

To the north of Little Hermon, close by the place where the Philistines had stationed their 
camp, was the spring of Dor. Here dwelt a woman, a pretender to occult science, who braved 
the law by consulting with a familiar spirit, the penalty of which was death. In his later years 
Saul had enforced this law vigorously, and Jewish tradition accounts for the preservation of the 
woman amid the extermination of her kind, by representing her as the mother of Abner. 
There seems, however, no foundation for connecting Saul’s chief captain with this feminine 


DEFEAT AND DEATH OF SAUL. 


489 


outlaw. Disguising himself, and accompanied by two of his servants, whom the tradition 
represents as Abner and Amasa, the king visits the woman in the dead of night. He pledges 
her that she shall suffer no harm and asks that she call up the shade of Samuel. Archbishop 
Trench has remarked on the depth of Saul’s despair, who, when forsaken of God, “seeks to 
move hell, since heaven is inexorable to him.” 

In our ignorance of the unseen world we do best, in the dark transactions that follow, to 
accept the record as it stands. In the dim light of the narrow hut, assisted, perhaps, by a crude 
ventriloquism, the woman begins her incantations, and calls upon Samuel to return from the 
dead. At the summons, to her own consternation, for she shrieks at what she beholds, there 
rises the apparition of an aged man, wrapped in a mantle. It is Samuel, who once more 
pronounces the doom of the king, and declares that on the morrow he and his sons shall be 
slain by the Philistines. At this confirmation of his forebodings, the king, who has taken no 
food all day, is overcome with sudden faintness and measures his giant length on the earthen 
floor. It is a pitiful sight — the prostrate king, discarded of God, and reduced in his sore 
trouble to depend on the ministrations of the outlawed woman. 

Yet all this is a fitting prelude to the disasters of the morning. For in the great battle, 
which rages all day long, the Philistines are everywhere successful. The light forces of the 
Hebrews melt away before the weight of their onset, and at last the remnant takes to flight. 
Saul, having been wounded by the archers, stands near a ghastly pile of the slain, Jonathan 
and two others of his sons being among them. It is the close of day, and the shadows of death 
are gathering upon him. The triumph of the foe cannot be hindered. He calls upon his 
armor-bearer to slay him, lest the enemy make mock of him; but the man refuses. Wearied, 
bleeding, desperate, he turns his sword against himself and falls upon it, and so dies by his own 
hand. There the Philistines find his body, conspicuous by its vast stature and the kingly 
diadem upon the helmet. In the fierce barbarity of the time they take vengeance on the 
poor relic of humanity, and nail it up, along with the bodies of his sons, on the walls of 
Beth-shan. 

But here a gleam of light falls athwart the gloomy story. For the men of Jabesh, grateful 
to Saul for the delivery of their city forty years before, come by night and carry away the grim 
memorials of departed greatness, to burn them at Jabesh, and bury the ashes under the boughs 
of a spreading tree. 

And so the long agony of Saul had its end. Raised up of God to save the nation from 
their enemies, he had involved them in his own ruin by his great disobedience. The willful 
king became the misanthrope, the madman, the suicide. And the last state of the land was far 
worse than the first. The Philistines have control of the great caravan route, and of the rich 
plain of Esdraelon,* and push their outposts to the southward, no one hindering. For Abner, 
who is still faithful to the house of Saul, after the sacrifice of the flower of the host at Gilboa, 
dares not withstand the foe and retires across the Jordan with the remnant left him, to take 
refuge in the land of Gilead. 

Two days after David’s return to Ziglag from pursuing the robbers, a messenger from 
the north, with the air of one bearing good tidings, reports the disaster of Gilboa, and the death 
of Saul and his sons. Not comprehending the magnanimity of the chieftain, and not thinking 
that he would regard the lifting a hand against the Lord’s anointed as the gravest of crimes, he 
foolishly claims to have been the slayer of Saul, and shows in proof the royal diadem and the 
bracelet from the king’s arm. Convicted out of his own mouth, he suffers the extreme penalty 
on the spot; David, in the intensity of his grief not pausing to sift truth from fiction in the 
story. 

And so David and his men mourn for Saul, rending their garments and spending the day 
in the bitterness of lamentation. The sincerity of this sorrow appears in the touch of genuine 


490 


DAVID ASSUMES SOVEREIGNTY. 


emotion that thrills in the beautiful dirge, which David composes, and which, under the name 
of The Song of the Bow, was taught to the children of Judea, and recited at every fireside. 
How he laments the calamity of Israel ! 1 

“ Thy glory, O Israel, is slain upon the high places! 

How are the mighty fallen!” 

He alludes to the inseparableness of the king and the prince on his right hand;— 

“ Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, 

And in their death they were not divided.” 

And then his soul turns most of all to his one dear friend ;— 

“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: 

Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: 

Thy love to me was wonderful, 

Passing the love of women.” 

Songs like this are not made to order. They must live first in the heart, and be fashioned 
in the mold of some great soul-struggle, and so become the real expression of a real experience. 


CHAPTER V. 

DAVID AS KIND OF HEBRON AND JERUSALEM. 

D AVID’S period of mourning having ended, he is free at last to drop the role of a guerrilla 
chieftain and assume the rights and prerogatives of a king. As was naturally the case, he 
first turned to his own tribe, that of Judah, which from this time becomes more prominent in 
history. During the recent troubles he had given it his powerful protection, and it was the only 
part of Palestine not overrun by the Philistines. 

In the important matter of taking the throne, David, whose constant submission to the 
divine guidance stands in sharpest contrast with the willfulness of Saul, inquires of the Lord if 
he shall go up into any of the cities of Judea. In answer, he is bidden to go up to Hebron, the 
capital town of Judea, and the earliest seat of civilized life in Palestine . 2 Here he is welcomed 
by the elders of Judea, who soon secure him an election as king to their tribe by popular vote, 
confirming their action by a public ceremony of anointing. 

For the present he accepts his position as king of Judea, realizing that his recent connec¬ 
tion with Achish of Gath must render him an object of suspicion with the rest of the Hebrews, 
and, with statesmanlike sagacity, not breaking at once with his allies of the plains, which would 
have precipitated him into a foreign war. 

Meanwhile Abner, who has withdrawn to the east of the Jordan, stations himself at the 
ancient Sanctuary of Mahanaim, near the place where Jacob wrestled with the angel, and 
proclaims Ishbosheth, a younger son of Saul, as king over Gilead, and such portions of Israel 
as he is able to wrest piece by piece from the Philistines. 

And so there is presently war between David and Abner’s “Shadow King”; David’s power 
augmenting, Ishbosheth’s declining. The subtlety of David’s policy at this period is masterly. 


»IL Samuel i, 18. 


2 Stanley, “ Sinai and Palestine,” p. 164. 




DAVID AND ABNER. 


491 


He still holds friendly relations with Achish, and so the Philistines view his struggle with 
Abner complacently. As Abner advances his outposts, driving the Philistines before him and 
taking possession of the plain of Esdraelon, the heights of Ephraim, and the villages of Benja¬ 
min, David advances northward, seizing portions of Dan, and at length capturing Mizpeh and 
Gibeon, which Saul had made his Sanctuary after the massacre of the priests at Nob. 

Events now follow thick and fast. The armies of Abner and of Joab, David’s chief 
captain, are in camp before the pool of Gibeon. Abner proposes that the issues of the rival 
houses be put to the decision of combat between the young men. Twelve men of Benjamin, and 
twelve of the host of David, meet in the open space, as the Horatii and the Curatii afterward 
contend for the rival claims of Rome and Alba. So equally matched are they that at the first 
onset each of each twelve slays his foeman, and all fall together. A general engagement follows, 
in which Abner’s men are defeated and put to flight. In the pursuit, Asahel, Joab’s youngest 
brother, a passionate love for whom seems the one redeeming trait of that fierce warrior’s heart, 
attaches himself to Abner: It is recklessness for the stripling to seek combat with the experi¬ 
enced chief. Abner warns him to return from following him, and at length, when he will not 
desist, drives the sharpened butt of his spear backward as they run, with so vicious a thrust as to 
pierce the lad through. It was an act for which Joab never made allowance, and the memory 
of which he nursed till time afforded the chance to wipe out the stain in Abner’s blood. 

The defeat of the army of the north is not so crushing but that hostilities continue in a 
feeble way. The people are weary of the weakness of Ishbosheth, and many in the northern 
tribes are evidently turning toward David. Abner himself feels that David’s star is in the 
ascendant, and secretly wishes to make terms with him. An altercation with Ishbosheth over 
Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, affords him a pretext for breaking with his master, and in an outburst 
of passion he declares that he will translate the kingdom from the house of Saul and set up 
David’s kingdom from Dan to Beersheba. Immediately he opens negotiations with David, 
sends him Michal, Saul’s daughter and David’s first wife, who had been separated from her 
husband by the vicissitudes of his career and had been living at Mahanaim, and arranges to 
gather a league of all Israel to acknowledge him as king. Hardly, however, is he gone from 
David’s presence, when Joab returns from an expedition to learn that Abner is about entering 
the king’s service. Inflamed by envy, lest the accession of so great a captain may endanger 
his own position near the king’s person, and burning with hatred for the killing of his brother 
Asahel, he performs one of those acts which so frequently stain the pages of ancient history. 
Sending a swift messenger he recalls Abner, possibly in David’s name, but certainly without 
his knowledge, and, when he is come, leads him aside as if to speak with him on some matter 
of importance. Then, when he has so far gained his rival’s confidence that he has him off his 
guard, he stabs him to the heart. 

It is one of the sorrowful experiences of David, so many of which fall to his lot through 
the sins of his household. His nephew may be rebuked, but is too powerful to be punished. 
It was not the first time, nor the last, that a ruler has been forced to temporize with a too 
powerful subject. How the pain of it went to David’s soul we may infer from his pathetic 
exclamation, “ These men, the sons of Zeruiah, be too hard for me.” 1 

The shock to Israel from Abner’s assassination was profound. The slaying of a man of 
high station, as we have found in the taking off of two of the presidents of our own republic, 
and as France has learned still more recently in her loss of Sadi-Carnot, confuses the public 
mind, not only because of the suddenness of the blow, but even more from dread of the dark 
possibilities that lurk behind. To discover that such deeds can be attributed to private rage or 
to personal malevolence, and not to a wide-spread conspiracy against the public weal, is a relief. 
When, as soon was the case, it was understood that David was not concerned in what would 


1 II. Samuel iii, 39. 



492 


DAVID KING OF ISRAEL. 


have been a serious breach of kingly faith, and that the responsibility of the affair lay wholly 
with Joab, the nation breathed more freely. 

But the loss of Abner was fatal to the stability of Ishbosheth’s throne. He had now no 
strong warrior, no prudent counselor. It was the general conviction that his sway was merely 
from day to day. What would soon have been settled by time was hastened by the cupidity of 
two captains in his army — Baanah and Bechab — probably of the old Canaanitish stock, and 
from the Gibeonitish city of Beeroth, wbo steal into Ishbosheth’s chamber. There, as he is 
taking rest in the heat of the day, they murder him in his couch and then hasten to Hebron, 
carrying the head of their royal victim as a testimony to David that he need no longer fear his 
rival. But they have mistaken quite the character of the king. He offers no thanks. He 
bestows no royal grants or high positions of state. As he had bidden the young men slay the 
Amalekite, who had presumed to think him glad for the death of Saul, so now he bids them 
smite these Gibeonites for assassinating Saul’s last surviving son. 

Seventeen years have thus passed since Samuel secretly anointed the young man David, 
in Bethlehem, and seven and a half since the latter began to rule in Hebron. Now the path 
is clear for the wider sovereignty. All things come to him who waits, and he has waited the 
Lord’s time with exemplary patience. With Abner and Ishbosheth in the tomb, the eyes of all 
turn toward David as their natural defender. The long wars with the Philistines have served 
one good purpose in quelling the jealousies of the tribes. They have found a common unity 
while repelling a common enemy. The tedious struggle has been justly likened by Wellhausen 
to a “forge, in which the kingdom of Israel was welded into one.” 1 Burying all their past 
differences, the elders of the tribes assemble at Hebron and offer the national crown to David. 
And yet they are careful to grant it with restrictions. They have been taught, through their 
experience with Saul, the dangers of irresponsible power, and so they prepare a solemn league 
and covenant, which reminds us of the Declaration of Bights agreed to by William of Orange 
and the English Parliament at the Bevolution; 2 and, when David has consented to its terms, 
they anoint him king over Israel. 

If any fears of his purposes have been entertained, all are dismissed in the general joy of a 
united nation. They recount his early services, when he commanded the host in the days of 
Saul, and how the Lord had appointed him a shepherd and a captain of the people. 3 Immedi¬ 
ately the best elements of the country rally at his side. He has long enjoyed the confidence 
and help of Abiathar, the high priest; and he is now joined by Jehoiada, the high priest of the 
line of Eleazar, and by Zadok, the future high priest of Solomon, who bring him 4,600 of the 
sons of Levi. He had attended the school of the prophets at Bamah, when a lad, and had 
always possessed their sympathy. The Prophet Gad had been with him for several years, and 
from this time forward he has Nathan, also, who is, in a way, the successor of Samuel, as a 
ready friend and counselor. 

The inauguration of the new king was observed with a great feast, lasting for three days; 
the people from all parts of the kingdom freely sending their offerings for the great rejoicing. 
The chronicler, who tells of the bread, and figs, and raisins, and wine, and oil, and sheep, 
which poured in from distant Issachar, and Zebulun, and Naphtali, adds his significant 
comment, “ for there was joy in Israel.” 4 

Confirmed thus as sovereign by the willing suffrages of the people, David at once redeems 
their best expectations by adopting lines of policy which reveal his farsighted statesmanship, 
and the sincerity of his devotion to his country as a whole. Up to this time there had been no 
national capital. Each tribe had its own chief city, whose interests it promoted without regard 
to other centers. And there had been no opportunity for the affections of the people to cling 


1 “ History of Israel,” p. 453. 
4 1. Chronicles xii, 40. 


2 Green, “History of English People,” IV, p. 35. 


3 II. Samuel v, 2. 






THE TOWER OF DAVID 






















494 


THE CAPTURE OF JEBUS. 


to the Tabernacle, for that sacred tent had been shifted from place to place, according to the 
exigencies of the occasion. As Prince of Judea, David might have held fast to Hebron, which 
occupied a commanding position, and was associated with the most sacred memories. Such a 
course, however, would have tended to give to the established residents of Hebron too great a 
prominence in the affairs of the kingdom, and to awaken a spirit of envy in the other tribes. 
Consequently, the king wisely resolves to found a new capital, one against which no prejudices 
may lie. 

Eighteen miles to the north of Hebron, just over the border from Judea, stood the ancient 
citadel of Jehus, a rocky fastness, held by a band of Canaanites who had never been subdued. 
Deep gorges — the beds of torrents that had rushed down these declivities beyond the memory 
of the oldest dweller in the land — lay to the east and west, their precipitous sides forming a 
natural defense, as the hill on which the fortress was built rose some five hundred feet 1 above 
the bed of the valley. To the north stretched out an extensive plain, and here a wall had been 
erected as a sufficient protection. The inhabitants regarded their situation so impregnable that 
the blind and lame could defend it. 

David resolves to make this place the chief seat of his kingdom. For this it presented 
many advantages. Since it lay actually in the territory of Benjamin, to select it for the seat of 
government would be taken as a concession to the northern tribes. If not in the geographical 
center of the country, it was on the great highway from the coast to the Jordan, and was easily 
accessible from all parts of the nation. The plain at the north would furnish ample space for 
the future growth of the city, while the precipitous hillsides, in which the Jebusites entertained 
such confidence, promised a secure residence, when once the place was in his own possession. 

With such a prize in sight, David acts with promptitude. As a statesman he recognizes 
the strategic value of a great victory at the outset of his wider administration; and, as a warrior, 
he sees that the hour to strike is when his armies are assembled. Since the enterprise was extra 
hazardous, he stimulated the ambition of his men by promising the highest post in the kingdom, 
the captaincy of the host, to whomsoever should first scale the wall and smite the Jebusites.' 
The question has been raised whether some dark thought crossed the king’s mind, as to what 
might befall the most venturesome man in the army, 2 and so the harsh yoke of the sons of 
Zeruiah be broken, but to this obviously no answer can be given. A more probable reflection 
would seem to be that of the chances offering for some other to mount the wall before Joab, 
and so relieve the sovereign from making the appointment, on which otherwise Joab would be 
certain to insist. Be this, however, as it may, the fortune of war rendered the position of the 
fierce Joab more secure than ever, for, selecting the southwest exposure, which was the steepest 
and least fortified, he pressed to the summit and so won the honors of the day. 

To the king’s credit, he tempers the capture of Jebus with mercy; and, though he takes the 
site of the city for distribution among his retainers, he spares the lives of his captives and 
furnishes them lands for residence. Not long afterward we notice the deposed Jebusite king, 
still a chieftain, holding a tract just without the city wall. 3 

Directly after gaining this important stronghold, David moves his seat of government 
from Hebron, changing the old name Jebus to Jerusalem, the Place of Peace. For the first 
time the town enters the field of history, 4 where it is to hold a commanding influence through 
the centuries. 

Like Bameses II. of Egypt, David is not only the successful warrior, but also the builder. 
He begins by fortifying his new capital so as to resist every hostile attack. He strengthens the 
Millo, the fortress taken from the Jebusites; and, instructed by his recent experience with the 

1 Conder, “Handbook,” p. 329. 

2 Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” II, p. 88. 3 II. Samuel xxiv, 23, “ Araunah, the king.” 

4 “Jebus .... first receives historical importance from him (David).”—Wellliausen, “ History of Israel,” p. 453. 



BUILDING OF JERUSALEM—PHILISTINE INVASION 


49 5 


cliffs on the south and west, erects a strong wall, extending it till it compasses the entire 
circuit of his town. This wall, its foundations laid in cyclopean rocks, was enlarged and 
strengthened by David and Solomon, until, with its protruding buttresses, and frowning bas¬ 
tions, and its massive breadth and height, it became the Gibraltar of the kingdom, exciting 
the ecstacy of a later singer, who exclaims in the rapture of his admiration, 

“ Walk about Zion, and go round about her : 

Tell the towers thereof. 

Mark ye well her bulwarks.” 

The new city is a hive of industry, with its swarms of workmen hurrying on the fortifica¬ 
tions, or erecting new dwellings for the citizens. Not only is employment furnished thus for the 
soldiers, who in this manner are gradually tamed from the wild life they had indulged during 
the civil war, hut also for foreign workmen. For now the king of Tyre cooperates with David, 
and sends him skilled carpenters and stonecutters, and great beams of cedar wood from Lebanon, 
bringing them in rafts to Joppa, whence they are dragged up the hills to their destination. The 
extensive palace which presently rises, fragrant with its scent of the cedar used in its finishing, 
and so commodious as to easily shelter the king’s great household, marks the expansion of the 
monarchy, and the development of the idea of the nation. If Saul was the military com¬ 
mander wearing the name of king, but really having slight hold on the wrangling tribes, 
David, with his strong city, his settled habitation, and his standing army, was the sovereign, 
ruling his people by his power to enforce obedience, as well as by his hold upon their gratitude 
and affection. 

These changes of organization, and the expanding consciousness of nationality are presently 
observed in Philistia. Nothing in the narrative suggests any breach of trust on the part of 
David toward his former suzerain at Gatli. His relation with Achish had been more that of an 
independent ally than of a feudal vassal, and his rise to the kingship seems to have awakened 
no opposition from the Cities of the Plain. When, however, he takes command of Israel and 
fortifies his capital, there rise forebodings lest his budding power may become too great. As 
the confidence of the people in his ability to protect them increased, the Philistines must have 
found, little by little, the collection of their tribute from Upper and Central Palestine more 
difficult, until at length they perceived that their rich dependency was slipping from their 
grasp. We miss from the record any mention of remonstrances made to David, as well as 
of his replies, though doubtless protracted negotiations were carried on. When, finally, it 
becomes clear that expostulation is ineffective, the lords of the Philistines determine on war. 
Remembering David’s martial prowess and how he had slain his ten thousands, they make 
vast preparations, and at length move up the hills with all their forces, the historian stating 
definitely that “all the Philistines came up to seek David.” 1 Conscious of the strength of 
his defenses, after placing a faithful guard in charge of the city, the king leads the army 
to the region of Adullam, 2 some six miles to the southeast of Bethlehem. 

The Philistines, crowding up from the plain, presently arrive before Jerusalem, and set 
their camp in the Valley of the Giants, directly under the wall of Jerusalem, and in the very 
spot that it most pleased David to have them. The king waits patiently till he has inquired 
of the Lord and received the answer that God would deliver them into his hand, when he 
bursts upon them with that fierce charge which so often won the day for the Israelitish arms. 
In David’s graphic speech, the rout was like the breaking of waters from a mountain lake. 
The swift torrent rush sweeps everything before it. The Philistines are driven with such 
headlong haste that they leave behind their idols, which they had brought in the hope of insur¬ 
ing their triumph, and which David, following the Law, 3 destroys, burning them in the fire. 4 

1 II. Samuel v, 17. 2 So I understand II. Samuel v, 17, “ And David went down to the hold.” 

3 Deuteronomy vii, 5. 4 1. Chronicles xiv. 12. 



496 


THE PHILISTINES CONQUERED —PIETY OF DAVID. 


The Philistines, realizing that Israel must be overcome at once, or that their grasp on the 
hill country must be abandoned, gather all their resources for a second attack; and, as soon as 
practicable, mass their army once more in the same Valley of the Giants, taking position close 
under the city wall. 

Following much the same tactics as before, David assembles the main part of his army 
below Bethlehem. Still again, not following his own wisdom, but depending on the guidance of 
God, he consults the oracle as to his course. This time he is bidden not to go out in direct 
attack, but to come upon the foe by a flank movement from the rear, through the forest of baca 
trees. In the second battle the discomfiture of the enemy is even more complete than before, 
for they are driven out of the country, the pursuit continuing to the parting of the roads, on 
the edge of the Maritime Plain. 

This was the last great struggle with Philistia. Some minor engagements were to follow, 
but the power of the Cities of the Plain was broken, and they were reduced to the humiliation 
of paying tribute to the land from which their own tax gatherers had so long insolently 
collected it. “David took the bridle of the Mother City out of the hands of the Philistines,” 1 
for so the sacred writer explains the importance of the victory which made David master of 
Gath and all her dependencies. 


CHAPTER VI. 

DAVID’S RELIGIOUS SPIRIT, HIS PSALMS, AND HIS VICTORIES. 

T HE quick genius of David, even while he is engaged in defeating his enemies and con¬ 
solidating his military power, perceives that for the full growth of the national spirit he 
must enlist the religious enthusiasm of his countrymen. To this end Jerusalem must be made 
not only the temporal, but even more, the spiritual capital, the abode of the national Sanctuary, 
the center of all pious hope and emotion. Doubtless in this great thought his own anxious 
longing for the house of God blended with his plans for the increase of the national glory, for 
David was always a devoutly religious man. He realized, with the insight of a God-fearing 
heart, that it is true righteousness which exalteth a nation, and that the best assurance of 
prosperity and happiness for his people lay in their dependence on the Almighty. But how 
could such a feeling of sacredness in the new city be best promoted? It possessed no such 
memories of the past as Ramah, the school of the prophets and the home of Samuel; nor as 
Bethel, where Jacob beheld his vision and heard the voice of the Lord; nor as Hebron, with its 
“ Oak ” of Mamre, where Abraham had sat in his tent door; and its Cave of Machpelah, 
where the dust of the fathers was enshrined. 

But if Jerusalem lacked all this, new religious associations might be fostered, and the faith 
of the One Living and True God be nationalized in the Holy City. To effect this it would be 
necessary to bring the Sacred Ark from its halting place at Kirjath-jearim, on the outposts of 
Judea, where it had been deposited by the Philistines on their sending it back from Ashdod. 

Having decided on the transfer of the Ark, the king constructs a new tabernacle on Mount 
Moriah, and arranges for bringing the Sacred Relic to Jerusalem with festivities of unexampled 
magnificence. A great convocation is summoned, which is attended by 30,000 representatives, 
many coming from the most distant parts of the realm. On the day appointed, the procession 
moves to the house of Abinadab, who had housed the Ark for several years, and there, the 


II. Samuel viii, 1 (Revised Version). 




THE ARK CARRIED TO JERUSALEM. 


497 


precious Memorial having been laden upon a cart drawn by oxen, the line starts upon the home¬ 
ward journey with every expression of joy and thanksgiving. On the way, however, a sudden 
tempest rises, and Uzzah, one of the sons of Abinadab, is pierced by a lightning shaft, and falls 
dead upon the spot. An incident so ominous strikes dismay into the hearts of David and his 
people. Its occasion was attributed to the disregard of the Levitical requirements in the car¬ 
riage of the Ark, for it should have been borne on the shoulders of Levites, all of whom were 
ceremonially clean. The placing of the Ark npon a cart, after the manner of the Philistines, 
and Uzzah’s attempt to steady it with his hand were contrary to the ancient regulations of the 
Tabernacle. 

Not daring to bear it farther, the king orders it to be deposited at the house of one Obed- 
edom, where it lay three months. It appearing after this time that the house of Obed-edom had 
not been injured for the Ark of God, but rather prospered, David decides to complete the work 
of transfer. On this occasion every requirement of the Law is fulfilled. None but Levites are 
suffered to approach the Ark, and they bear it with staves, as it had been carried in the Wilder¬ 
ness. As the line sets forth upon its march, the anxiety of David and his courtiers is intense; 
but when they have moved six stages (something near a mile), and nothing untoward has 
occurred, a halt is made and a great sacrifice is offered to the Lord. Then, amid the acclama¬ 
tions of the assembled thousands, it is again lifted. The weird cry goes up, as in the desert five 
centuries before, 

“Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered .” 1 
To this is now joined a new song, appropriate for the removing of the Ark, 

“ Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place, 

Thou and the Ark of thy strength. 

Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness; 

And let thy saints shout for joy .” 2 

The chronicler gives an extended catalogue 3 of the priests and dignitaries of the kingdom 
who participated in this celebration, which set the keynote of Jewish devotion at a high pitch, 
and the memory of which lingered long in the national heart. All manner of musical instru¬ 
ments in use at the time were heard, keeping time with the chant of the Levites; and the line 
of the sons of the prophets joined in the religious dances to which they had been trained. The 
most conspicuous figure of all, however, was the king himself, clad in the white ephod, as worn 
by the high priest, and dancing to the music of his harp before the Ark. Dean Stanley has 
called this the greatest day of David’s life, as here he was the Conqueror, 4 Poet, Musician, 
Priest, in one. The incident of Michal, who sees him from her window dancing as he convoys 
the symbol of Jehovah into the ancient habitation of heathenism, and presently reproaches him 
for so demeaning himself, has been termed unhappy; and yet may it not have served its part 
in bringing out the noble response of the king, who does not disdain to be the Lord’s servant ? 
If he had humbled himself, it was before the Lord, who had chosen him in preference to Saul, 
to make him prince over the people of the Lord. 

It was on this festival day that good use was made of some of those admirable compositions, 
the psalms, the joy songs of the Church of God. Apparently the Twenty-fourth Psalm was 
composed for the triumphal march, as the Ark was borne toward the city. There is the call to 
the watchmen, 

“ Lift up your beads, O ye gates ; 

And be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors : 

And the King of Glory shall come in.” 

To this call the watchmen replied in challenge, 

“Who is this King of Glory?” 

3 1. Chronicles xv. 


1 Psalm lxviii, 1. 


2 Psalm cxxxii, 8, 9. 


* Stanley, “Jewish Church,” II, p. 94. 



498 


PSALTER OF THE TEMPLE. 


And the waiting host in answer takes up the strain, 

“ The Lord strong and mighty, 

The Lord mighty in battle.” 

And then all the singers, as the procession sweeps into the city, chant together, 

“ Lift up your heads, O ye gates ; 

Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors : 

And the King of Glory shall come in. 

Who is this King of Glory ? 

The Lord of hosts, 

He is the King of Glory.” 

And the chronicler, in his description of the proceedings of the day, records an extended 
psalm, which he states that David gave to Asaph, the chief of the singers, to give thanks unto 
the Lord. As we examine this beautiful praise poem, 1 we find it breathing the spirit of devout 
dependence upon God, and swelling with the emotions of a loyal heart, which feels that its 
highest work is to worship before the Creator. 

Taking this Song of Consecration, we have a standard by which to measure the Psalms of 
David. For it is now well understood that the Psalter itself was the Temple Hymn Book, and 
that some of the songs were written by an early hand, while many were of later composition. 
Seventy-three are connected with the poet king by title, and even of these the critics are 
doubtful whether all can assuredly be attributed to him. Many of the one hundred and fifty, 
as we have them, contain allusions which show their later origin. On the score of references to 
the ritual service, and to the Temple, which did not exist in David’s time, some psalms, which 
otherwise might be regarded as David’s, are assigned to forgotten authors. Possibly the critics 
may be over rash in thus wresting the laurel from David’s brow on the basis of a chance 
expression, since the allusion to the place of use may be accounted for very easily. It is not 
difficult to imagine the leader of the Temple choir employing an existing hymn, and inserting a 
line, or an allusion, better to adapt it for the immediate purpose. When we find the Psalm of 
Consecration, 2 which the chronicler declares to have been given by the king on the day of the 
festival, furnishing fragments which occur in six several psalms of the Temple collection, we 
perceive that the leaders of the choir understood in some measure the art of adaptation for the 
occasion. 

Three psalms particularly, the fifteenth, the one hundred and first, and the one hundred 
and eighteenth, are outgrowths of David’s delight in coming to his new home. Others, like the 
eighth, or the eighteenth, or the twenty-third, or the thirty-second, are clearly the expression of 
David’s personal emotions; the eighth, of his view of nature while watching the flocks by 
night; the twenty-third, of his confidence in God, probably used on his introduction to Saul; 
and the thirty-second, the vehicle of his penitential sorrow after his great sin. Comparing 
the titles, the local setting, and the peculiarities of diction in the entire collection, we may con¬ 
clude that the king composed not far from half of those handed down to us, though we are to 
understand that he wrote other compositions that have not been preserved. 

For the principle of the Temple collection, as Ewald has pointed out, was to gather poems 
selected for their appropriateness for public worship, without regard to their intrinsic merit. In 
this manner the songs of Moses, and of Deborah, and even David’s beautiful Song of the Bow, 
were omitted by the compiler, who inserts but two of the songs of Solomon, though he 
composed no less than a thousand and five. 3 A recent writer has lamented the loss to the 
world’s imagination from the fact that David’s secular poems have perished. He misses the 
“Idyls of shepherd life,” 4 some of which, preserved in his psalms, are painted “with more 

1 1. Chronicles xvi. 2 Psalms xv, xcvi, cvi-cviii, cxxxvi. 

3 1. Kings iv, 32, 33. 4 Murray, “ Psalms,” p. 173. 




















































































































500 


THE ARMY REORGANIZED —COURT OF DAVID. 


of the Judges, and comprehended all able-bodied men, from twenty years old and upward. 
Any extensive reorganization of this ancient body would naturally provoke resentment; and 
yet, as it existed, its strongest sympathies lay in the allegiance of each man for his native tribe. 
With singular astuteness the king leaves this organization intact, providing for the national 
tie through the appointment of general officers taken from his faithful 600, whose services 
he retains as the nucleus of a standing army. And still further to instill the principles of 
national loyalty, he cuts the great host into twelve divisions, each of which is to serve in turn 
for thirty days under the king’s order, near his person, or at any duty he may direct. In this 
manner every man in the kingdom, able to bear arms, came into touch with the influences 
circling about the throne and the Sacred Tabernacle. With equal sagacity the new ruler left 
the administration of justice for the most part with the local authorities, though the king’s 
authority was felt in all parts of his realm. 1 

Gradually the court assumes more and more the atmosphere of royal state. David has his 
bodyguard of Cheritliites and Pelethites, hired from Philistia, and reminding us of the Pope’s 
Swiss guard. His table is on a princely scale, providing not only for his extensive household, 
but also for the pensioners on the royal bounty, among whom we find Mepliibosheth, the crip¬ 
pled son of Jonathan, whom David maintains for his father’s sake. In all the kingdom David’s 
word made the law, for none could turn to the right or left from all that he had spoken. 2 

All who came before him to plead their causes, as well as his special counselor, Nathan, 
prostrated themselves with their faces to the ground. In the war with Ammon, when the capital 
city, Rabbali, was nearly reduced, Joab does not proceed to the final assault till David appears 
on the ground and in person orders the storming of the town. The king’s eye is upon every 
industry, and his great officials make their collecting tours in the olive-yards, and the vineyards, 
and the cattle ranges, and in every department of production and increase. 

It is only at tw T o points that we observe the will of the monarch to be restricted. The first 
is in the matter of the general census of the population ; an enterprise which commends itself to 
our first thought as right and laudable, but which finally David confesses to have been a sinful 
project. 3 The explanation is furnished by Oilier, 4 who points out that such a consummation 
was “ probably designed to lead to a complete military organization of the nation,” thus tending 
toward a military despotism. As penalty for his offense he is given choice of three calamities: 
a seven-years’ famine to befall the people, a three-months’ defeat by his enemies, or for a pesti¬ 
lence to run its course for three days in the land. Unwilling to decide in so momentous an 
affair, the king chose to “fall into the hand of the Lord,” 5 and to suffer what the AJmighty 
might lay upon him. In consequence a plague was sent upon the nation, but on the third day 
of its ravage, in answer to David’s prayer, the death angel stayed his power at the threshing 
floor of Araunali, the Jebusite. But he was also baffled in his intense desire to build a house 
unto the Lord — a permanent and fitting home for the Sacred Ark, to replace the frail structure 
of the Tabernacle. It grieved liis heart that he should dwell in a house of cedar, while the Ark 
of God was still under curtains. But for the reason that he had so constantly been a man of 
war, he was debarred from this noble and glorious undertaking, which was consigned to his more 
peaceful son. In this striking manner, even under the old dispensation, God testifies that his 
religion is one of peace and good will to man. But, though restricted from the actual work of 
construction of the holy house, the king’s last years were occupied in gathering material, and in 
laying up treasure, to be employed by his successor. 

Yet in the main, David’s enterprises were successful. Gradually the royal power became 
more firmly established, until under his hand Israel has a name in the earth, and ranks beside 
the great empires of Persia and Egypt. When the tread of the alien marauder ceased to be 

1 II. Samuel viii, 15. 2 II. Samuel xiv, 19. 3 II. Samuel xxiv, 10. 

4 “ Theology of the Old Testament,” p. 371. 5 II. Samuel ii, 14. 



WARS WITH MOAB AXD AMMON. 


oOl 


heard in the land, the people could employ themselves in their various vocations unhindered, 
and as a consequence the country rapidly increased in prosperity and riches. And the great 
king ruled over all with a firm yet benignant scepter, confirming justice, advancing the national 
welfare, and teaching the people the profit of righteousness and the joy of waiting on the Lord. 

But before all this came to pass, and the kingdom had settled down into a state of profound 
restfulness and peace, the king was forced to carry on several important campaigns, in the course 
of which the realm was greatly extended, and respect for its authority widely disseminated. 
The prostration of the country after the overthrow of Saul, and during the period of the civil 
war, had given a coveted opportunity to the neighboring tribes on every side to make serious 
encroachments on Israelitish territory, of which they were not slow to avail themselves. It was 
in resistance to armed invasion of his kingdom that David took up the sword, for in all his 
numerous wars we do not once find him provoking a conflict. Only when previously assaulted 
does he assemble the host, and return blow for blow. The repulse of the double attack of the 
Philistines has already been described. Other spasmodic risings were attempted on the part of 
the Cities of the Plain, but were promptly crushed and resulted in David’s reducing them to the 
former condition of Israel; for he removed their arms and munitions of war, and despoiled their 
towns of their principal possessions. 

One of the first of David’s foreign wars was with Moab, a pastoral country to the east of 
the Dead Sea. The occasion of the campaign does not appear, but it must have been of the 
most exasperating nature from the severity of the punishment which the king inflicted. There 
is a tradition to the effect that the king of Moab had put to death David’s father and mother, 
whom he had consigned to the care of the Moabite in the period of his difficulties with Saul. 
But it is far more probable that Moab had made an attack on some of David’s outlying districts, 
and had perpetrated acts of malignant atrocity. Mesha, who ruled in Moab some fifty years 
after this, tells in his inscription on the Moabite Stone how he had slain every inhabitant 
in the towns he had captured, sacrificing them to his god, Cliemosh. Whatever the provo¬ 
cation, David moves promptly, and, having overwhelmed his assailant, makes reprisal for his 
cruelty by putting to death two-thirds of the Moabitish army. While we wonder at the 
severity of this chastisement, we must take into consideration the fact that the king had no 
fortresses on his border, and that the only way he had of guarding against the aggressions of 
his neighbors was by reducing those who were troublesome to a condition of dependence. 

The war with Moab brought on a conflict with Ammon, which presently involved the 
entire border to the east and northeast; the Ammonites calling to their help the kings of the 
various principalities, which had grown powerful during the period of Israel’s weakness. The 
immediate occasion of conflict was the gross insult to the ambassadors whom David had sent to 
express condolence to the king of Ammon on the death of his father. Manifestly Hanun was 
anxious to precipitate hostilities, for, in place of receiving the envoys kindly, he subjected them 
to the grossest humiliation on the pretense that they had come to spy out the land. If within 
our own remembrance all Paris was ablaze at the unfounded rumor that William of Germany 
had insulted the French ambassador, it may be imagined what a flame of passion would burst 
forth in Israel when David’s men sent word, for their sense of indignity would not permit them 
to face the court, that Hanun had shaved off* half their beards and cut off their robes at the 
girdle. 

Joab was at once ordered into the field, and a great engagement followed not far from 
Medeba, a town of Beuben, which had been threatened by the enemy. The king of Ammon 
had subsidized the Syrian kings of Zobah, Maacah, and Tob, who, for the hire of a thousand 
silver talents, sent a force of 33,000 mercenaries to cooperate with him. Marching swiftly over 
Jordan, before the Syrians could effect a junction with Ammon, Joab places himself between the 
divided forces of his adversary. He arranges part of his army to face the Syrians to the 


502 


SYRIA SUBJUGATED. 


northward, under command of his brother Abishai, while he leads the main division in person 
against Ammon, in an attack so fierce that the day is quickly won. The main army of the 
Ammonites having been routed, the Syrian allies are panic stricken, and, giving way before 
Abishai, hasten to find refuge within the walls of Rabbah, the Ammonitish capital. 

The victory was great, but by no means decisive. Ammon rallies its resources, and the 
Syrian kings, perceiving that they will be held responsible for their participation in the former 
campaign, assemble their best troops for a struggle of life or death. David himself, calling out 
all the host, marches into the territory of Zobah, and at Helam, a town whose site is unknown, 
ends the war with a single decisive blow. The fruits of the battle—40,000 footmen and the 
men of 7,000 chariots slain, a thousand war chariots captured, the most of which are destroyed, 
a great store of arms, a thousand shields overlaid with gold, the supply of copper which was 
afterward used for the brazen laver and the pillars and the furnishings of the Temple — attest 
the magnitude of the triumph. 

The several Aramean principalities hasten to confess allegiance to so mighty a conqueror, 
and Israel at once comes into possession of the ancient city of Damascus, and of the whole 
region to the eastward, stretching as far as the bank of the Euphrates. If we refer the compo¬ 
sition of the Twentieth Psalm to this time, we must admire the modesty of a great warrior, who 
can return to his capital city with his hundred war chariots of Zobah, and the immense spoil 
wrested from the enemy, to bid his singers chant his remembrance of the Lord, 

“ Some trust in chariots, and some in horses : 

But we will make mention of the name of Jehovah our God . 7,1 

The glory of the Syrian conquest was enhanced by the results of the campaign against 
Edom, whose wild tribes had joined with Ammon against David. To bring them into subjec¬ 
tion Abishai is sent into the South, where he wins a crushing battle with the Edomites in the 
Valley of Salt, at the lower end of the Dead Sea, following this by the capture of Petra, the 
Rock City of the Sons of Esau. At this stage Joab is ordered to the chief command, and carries 
on the war with relentless severity for six months, until all who resist him perish. One prince 
of Edom, still a child, is carried by his attendants to Egypt, and is protected by the Pharaoh. 
But so terrible was the name of Joab in the annals of his race, that it was not till he had heard 
of the death of the great captain that he ventured to return to his native land. 2 The whole 
region was made tributary to Israel, and the country was garrisoned by Hebrew outposts, as 
formerly Philistia had garrisoned Ephraim and Benjamin. To celebrate this conquest David 
erected a pillar, or some form of monument, which may have been an inscription, as Geikie 
suggests, “carved on the rocks of Edom, after the manner of Eastern kings.” 3 


1 Psalm xx, 7. 


2 1. Kings xi, 21. 


3 “ Hours with the Bible,” III, p. 249. 



CHAPTER VTT. 

DAVID’S SIN, HIS REBELLIOUS SONS, AND HIS PLACE IN HISTORY. 

A/TEANWHILE the war of the Ammonites was not yet finished. When, one by one, their 
allies had been cut off, they were gradually forced by the Hebrews into their walled city, 
Rabbah-Ammon, which lay some thirty miles to the northeast of Jerusalem. This was a town 
of great strength, having an upper citadel and a lower settlement, the latter containing the royal 
residence. The town was famous as the source of a perennial spring, from which it was known 
as the “ City of Waters.” 1 

Owing to the abundance of the water supply, and the vigorous preparations of the 
Ammonites to resist a siege, as well as, no doubt, to the inexperience of the Hebrews in 
conducting an assault on a well fortified town, the reduction of the place lingered from month 
to month. 

It was during this protracted siege of Rabbah that the event befell which ever after cast its 
somber shadow over the king’s life, and which, though he repented of it and was forgiven of 
God, remains as the one dark spot on an otherwise charming and admirable character. While 
his officers were prosecuting the foreign war, David remained at home engaged in the affairs of 
his kingdom. Walking one evening on his palace roof, which overlooked a portion of the city, 
he observed a woman, Batlisheba by name, bathing in a tank constructed for the purpose on the 
roof of her home. She was of surpassing beauty, and the king, in place of resisting his desires, 
gave way to a violent infatuation, which broke over every restraint. Though she was the wife 
of Uriah, the Hittite, one of the foremost of his mighty men, who was fighting for the king- 
before the walls of Rabbah, he suffered no honorable scruple to balk his pleasure, and sent his 
messengers to summon the woman to his harem. As the record goes, nothing indicates any 
reluctance on her part to accept the guilty honor, though from what follows it would seem that 
David trusted that the relation might be concealed. When, however, it appears that exposure 
is likely to occur, the king, with hope to screen his wickedness and the woman’s shame, sends 
for Uriah from the front, as if to obtain news of the war. Uriah comes, but after he has 
delivered his tidings, the soldier’s stern sense of duty kept him at the king’s gate, instead of 
permitting him to retire to his house. All this effort on the king’s part to secure concealment 
of his guilty course is a striking commentary on his customary rectitude of life, and also on the 
purity of morals then prevailing in Jerusalem. For in the nations round about it was habitual 
for the sovereign to summon to his couch, as wife or concubine, whomsoever he pleased. 2 After 
repeated opportunities were offered the unconsciously injured husband to visit his home, none of 
which he accepted, the king, led on from one sin to another, sent him with a message to Joab 
to place him in the front of the battle, and to retire from him that he might die. The fidelity 
of Joab to his king was unswerving, and he obeyed the mandate to the letter. Uriah was put 
in an exposed position and fell, murdered by David as much as if the king had stabbed him 
with his own hand. No sooner was the woman’s customary period of mourning past, than 
David sent for her openly and added her to the number of his acknowledged wives. So far all 
had passed after the manner of any unscrupulous oriental court; but now a scene follows which 
has no parallel in the annals of Bagdad or Constantinople, and which stands out as a lasting 
memorial of the influence of righteousness on the kingdom, and of the better nature of David 
himself. For when Nathan the prophet comes with his allegory of the poor man and his one 

2 Geikie, “Hours with the Bible,” p. 271. 

503 


Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” II, p. 113. 



504 


THE PENITENCE OF DAVID. 


ewe lamb, of which his richer neighbor had despoiled him, and makes his sharp application, 
“Thou art the man,” the king confesses his guilt, and falls prostrate before God in penitential 
supplication for pardon. 

Two psalms are the product of this experience. Tn the fifty-first one hears the bitterness 
of remorse, when the king lifts up his voice to God, 

“ Against thee, thee only have I sinned, 

And done that which is evil in thy sight.” 

How earnestly does he plead for forgiveness, and for return of the divine favor, 

“ Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, 

Thou God of my salvation ; 

And my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.” 

In the Thirty-second Psalm we have intimation of the duration of David’s penitental 
distress, 

“ Day and night thy hand was heavy upon me : 

My moisture was changed as with the drouth of summer.” 

But at length, having given himself to God in fresh consecration, he feels the assurance of 
reconciliation. The accents of a real repentance are in this exclamation, 

“ I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. 

I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord ; 

And thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” 

But though God may pardon, there are evil consequences to follow. Whoever lifts the 
tide-gates of sin opens the way for floods of sorrow and suffering. David has given occasion 
for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, so Nathan declared; and the echoes of their evil 
speaking are still in our ears. As partial expiation, Bathsheba’s child must die. During its 
lingering illness David is inconsolable; not so much, it may be believed, from affection, as 
from the consciousness that its life is forfeited for his misdoing. And even after its decease his 
heart is heavy. 

The siege of Rabbah progresses, but the king lingers in Jerusalem. Realizing as no other 
can the occasion of David’s indifference to the issues of the campaign, Joab sends the sharp 
message that he has taken the City of Waters (so the lower town was named) and that the king 
must come to order the assault on the citadel, lest the honor of its capture go to the captain 
rather than to the sovereign. Under this pressure David goes to the town, whither he had sent 
Uriah to die, the sight of its battlements driving the arrow of remorse into his heart. The city 
falls under the fierce rush of the Hebrews, and the Ammonitish nation is put to hard labor in 
the timber yards, and the grain fields, and the brick yards . 1 With the subjection of the 
Ammonites, David’s foreign wars, all of which were successful, were ended, and the kingdom 
was established on a sure foundation. 

But while the latter half of David’s reign was one of continued splendor, and while the 
nations about him were glad to count as their friend and ally so redoubtable a conqueror, his 
court was the storm center of intrigue and commotion, threatening the safety of the throne, and 
in one instance bursting into open insurrection, in which the king was compelled to flee to the 
wilderness to save his life. 

The source of all these troubles, when traced to their beginnings, is found in the com¬ 
plications of the king’s household, and in the natural results of the polygamous relation. 
Maurice has well remarked how David’s history supplies “exemplifications of all the miseries 


1 II. Samuel xii, 31. So this difficult passage is best interpreted. 



COURT INTRIGUES—AMNON AND ABSALOM. 


505 

and curses which spring from the mixture of families and the degradation of women in a court 
and country where polygamy exists.” 1 The king had brought to Jerusalem an extensive 
harem, comprising six wives, besides several concubines. Ten of the latter are mentioned, 2 but 
they are evidently only part of the number, and to these Bathsheba is added as a lawful wife, 
and the favorite of all. Most probably the concubines were housed together, as in the harem of 
the sultan to this day; but apparently the wives held separate apartments of their own, con¬ 
nected with the palace, where they dwelt with their children. Each of these establishments, of 
necessity, was a nest of conspiracy and intrigue. 

It was amid this maze of plotting and counterplotting for the king’s favor, and all the 
possible advantages arising therefrom, that Amnon, the prince royal, the son of Ahinoam of 
Jezreel, grows to manhood. He is weak and unprincipled, and so little master of himself that 
he grows thin and pale through constantly meditating the blackest of crimes. 

Absalom and Tamar, son and daughter of Maacah, the princess of Gesliur, form another 
group in the royal circle. Brother and sister are famed for their extraordinary beauty, 
excelling in this regard all the other children of David, all of whom inherit the personal 
graces of their father. Absalom is proud, and yet able to bend to the rabble to gain popular 
favor, and is gifted like Alcihiades with the ready speech which attracts the multitude. 

Adonijah, the son of Haggith, the dancer, is bold and self-possessed, and nourishes plans 
with his secret counselors, who are ready to further his fortunes and their own, if not by fair 
means, then by foul. 

Still another clique in the palace clusters about the graceful Bathsheba, who is David’s 
most intimate confidante, and who now has another son, whom the king, to signalize his trust in 
God’s pardon, has named Solomon the Peaceful. In the accidents of human life it is no impos¬ 
sible thing, particularly in a court where the succession is determined not by primogeniture, but 
by the will of the king, that this child may come to the throne; and Bathsheba is quick to 
meet any scheme to her son’s disadvantage with another to neutralize its effect. 

But even more noticeable, from its influence on events presently to transpire, is the com¬ 
pany that stands about the person of Ahithophel, one of David’s counselors, and the man who 
was regarded as the shrewdest and most far-sighted in Israel. He was grandfather to Bath¬ 
sheba, and had never forgiven her or the king for their offense against his honor; though for 
the time he dissembled his hatred, and was daily in the king’s presence as one of his most 
trusted friends. But like Judas, of whom our Lord makes him a type, 3 he was covering 
malevolence in order to have it gather strength for the fiercer flame. The whispers of this 
astute man were guarded, but each was a barbed arrow, poisoned with the venomous spirit 
which knows not how to forgive, or, not forgiving, to forget. 

In such a labyrinth of conflicting purposes we may not look for peace or innocence. If the 
king worships God, the most of the princes bend their souls to passion or to ambition. It is no 
wonder then that Amnon startles the court by the outrage of his half-sister, Tamar, whom the 
wily Jonadab has beguiled to his apartments under pretense of ministering to her brother in 
his sickness. The shrieks of the dishonored girl, as she makes her way to the apartments of 
Absalom, tearing her gaily colored robe, 4 must have struck dismay to the heart of the over- 
indulgent king; who, though wroth with Amnon, does not punish the heir to his throne. Two 
long years of bitter thoughts rankling in the bosom of Absalom follow—of thoughts which 
sometimes break out into bitter words. All this time the dark scowl 5 is never absent from the 
face of this prince, who is meditating vengeance. At last he strikes his blow, and the court is 
shocked again by the intelligence that Absalom has slain his elder brother at a sheep-shearing 
festival, to which he had invited the princes. 

1 Maurice, “ Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament,” p. 62. 2 II. Samuel xv, 16. 

3 John xiii, 18, in reference to Psalm lv, 12-14. 4 II. Samuel xiii, 19. 5 II. Samuel xiii, 32; Ewald. 



THE REBELLION OF ABSALOM. 


500 


For three years Absalom is kept in exile at the home of his mother’s father, in Geshur, 
beyond the Jordan, but at last is permitted to return to Jerusalem, where, however, the king’s 
resentment for the fratricide is so great that he does not see the face of his son. Finally, 
through the mediation of Joab, a reconciliation is effected, sincere on the father’s part, but 
hollow enough with Absalom, who comes back to plot not only for the succession, but also to 
add to the murder of his brother the seizure of his father’s scepter, though it may cost that 
father’s life. With a perseverance and systematic method worthy of a better cause, he sets 
about winning the favor of the populace. He rides about the city in state greater than is 
affected by any of his brother princes. He mingles among the suitors at the seat of judgment 
in the king’s gate, displaying particular deference toward any whom the course of justice has 
compelled to wait, or who have been disappointed at the decisions of David. By refusing the 
salutations of those who approached him, and greeting them with an effusive familiarity, 
he attached them to himself. Ahithophel, seeing in Absalom the rising star, joined himself 
to his party, and gave him shrewd counsel in the ways of detaching the popular heart from 
the king. 

Nothing attempted by the infatuated prince shows more clearly the astute counsel of 
Ahithophel, than Absalom’s encouragement of the jealousy of Judah against the rest of the 
kingdom. For Judah, when it furnished its king to rule over Israel, had expected to hold 
precedence over the rest of the tribes; 1 but David, in his policy of making Israel a nation 
rather than an agglomeration of separate provinces, had ignored the tacit claim. Playing 
upon this discontent of Judah, Absalom gathers adherents throughout the tribe, assisted the 
more by the fact that Ahithophel was of South Judea, and able to influence his friends in 
that region. 

When at length his preparations are completed, under pretense of worshiping God at 
Hebron in fulfillment of a vow, an excuse which would best win David’s consent, the prince 
hastens to his father’s first capital. There, after binding his guests to his fortunes by the 
seal of a joint ceremony of sacrifice, he raises the standard of revolt, and sounds the trumpet 
summoning all Israel to acknowledge him king in place of his father. 

Bad news travels swiftly, and the aged king is soon told, almost to the breaking of his 
heart, that his favorite son is a traitor, and that his own tribe of Judah has deserted him. 
Intelligence that Ahithophel, his trusted counselor, has cast in his lot with the rebellion, as it 
seems to augur the success of the enterprise, makes the disaster more complete. 

At once David settles on his course of action. If all the nation is with Absalom, he must 
not tarry at Jerusalem, lest there be great shedding of blood; and so he concludes to take 
refuge beyond the Jordan, till the people have recovered from their brief madness. As he 
takes his way out of the city which he had created, the lamentations of the inhabitants are 
heard on every side. 

Calamity reveals not only the hollowness of false friendships, but also the sincerity of 
honest faith. How beautiful at this time the devotion of Zadok and Abiathar, who follow him 
with the Ark of God; and the steadfast fidelity of Ittai of Gath, who declares that he will 
follow David for life or death; and the grief of Hushai, who comes in open sorrow, his priestly 
garment rent, and with dust sprinkled upon his head ! 

The loyalty of these friends restores a gleam of hope to David’s heart. He accepts the 
service of Ittai, but bids Zadok and Abiathar return to Jerusalem, where their knowledge 
of current events may be made useful to him. Hushai he directs to attend at the court of 
Absalom, where he may match with his craft the treasonable counsels of Ahithophel. Then 
the sorrowful procession goes forward to be met by the gifts of Ziba, and the rage of Shimei, 
the latter a survivor of the house of Saul, who walks on the crest of the hill above them, 


'II. Samuel xix, 43. 




THE PILLAR OF ABSALOM. 




















THE REBELLION SUPPRESSED. 


508 

hurling stones and shouting curses, thus venting the pent-up wrath of the old dynasty against 
its successor. 

That evening they reach the Jordan, where they pause for refreshment, but are roused 
again by messengers from the high priests and bidden to put the Jordan between them and 
the pursuit of Absalom. Before the morning dawns they have crossed the river, and find 
refuge in Mahanaim, of Gilead, the former capital of Ishbosheth. 

Meanwhile the wisdom of despatching Hushai to Absalom has been justified. Ahithophel, 
with a view to create a breach between Absalom and David too wide for any chance of reconcil¬ 
iation, had advised the rebellious prince to appropriate his father’s concubines—an offense to 
oriental eyes the worst that could be conceived. To this he added the proposition of pursuing 
the fugitive with 12,000 men, overtaking him when footsore and weary, and slaying him 
outright, thus bringing the contest to a speedy termination. When this plan, so eminently 
sagacious for Absalom, was discussed in the council, Hushai, with the single object to gain time 
for David, and for the people to take a second sober thought, draws a picture of David’s 
prowess, and the need of attacking him, if at all, with a great army. His words win the 
general approval. Ahithophel, knowing thoroughly the hollowness of the conspiracy, and that 
its only chance of success lies in a sudden and forceful blow, retires from the council in 
despair, and, hastening to his home among the southern hills, sets his house in order, and, 
like Judas, puts a cord to his neck and dies by his own hand. 

From the moment that Ahithophel deserted him, Absalom’s cause was lost. He led his 
men of Judea across the Jordan, and there in the “Wood of Ephraim” fought the battle, 
which, like that of the younger Cyrus, ended the revolt by the death of the prime mover. But 
while Cyrus fell bravely fighting in the midst of his soldiers, the rebellious prince perished 
miserably by a catastrophe so appropriate that the good of all ages have esteemed it the act 
of God. 

The forces of David are divided into three bands under Joab, Abishai, and Ittai. They are 
familiar with the ins and outs of the forest, which is grown up with underbrush, forbidding any 
distant view. The men of Absalom are bewildered in the thickets, and flee before David’s 
veteran soldiers. Absalom, escaping on his mule, meets a column of his father’s troops, and 
setting off at full speed rides under the spreading branches of a great tree, where he is caught 
up by his long hair, and left suspended, while the mule goes on. And there Joab finds him, 
and thrusts him through with three staves, in direct disobedience to the king’s order that he 
should not harm the young man, leaving ten of his men to complete the bloody work. 

It seems to have been a kind of poetic justice which permitted the long hair, in which this 
debonair prince took such pride, and the royal mule which he had appropriated from his father, 
to contribute toward his unhappy end. And his burial was no more honorable than his death, 
for Joab had the body cast into a gully and covered by a pile of stones. 

Once more we observe the gentleness of the aged king, for he harbors no resentment against 
the child who would have slain him like a dog. When he asks of the messenger his tidings, 
it is with the tender touch, “ Is it well with the young man, Absalom ? ” as if to excuse the 
rebellion as the indiscretion of irresponsible youth-time. When he learns the sad truth, it is 
to go aside to the chamber over the gate, and cry aloud with that plaintive cry, whose echoes 
still move our hearts, “ O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died 
for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son ! ” 

One single shudder of the great rebellion followed. In the assembly convened at Gilgal to 
accomplish the restoration of David by a renewed popular election, there was a noble emulation 
of the people to renew their allegiance. But in the midst of the negotiations it was noticed 
that the tribe of Judah had escorted the king to the convocation. Suddenly the trumpet is 
blown, and the cry goes up, “ To your tents, O Israel! ” The jealousy of the northern tribes 



DAVID MOURNING FOR 


ABSALOM. 


GUSTAVE DO RE. 




























































510 


DEATHBED OF DAVID. 


against the South has burst into a sudden flame that scorches the tie of loyalty. The leader of 
the new insurrection was Sheba, a Benjamite, a rank partisan of Ephraim. For a few days the 
rising promised to be unmanageable; for the ten tribes drew away from the king to a man, 
leaving him to be escorted to Jerusalem by Judah alone, which from now on never fails in 
loyalty to the royal line. But the bubble bursts when Joab pursues Sheba to the little town of 
Beth-maacliah, and the inhabitants, to escape the horrors of a siege, toss the insurgent’s head 
over the wall. During the remainder of the king’s reign, as well as that of his illustrious 
successor, there was no further attempt to cast off the authority of the crown. In the nearly 
ten years that follow, affairs were so peaceful as to leave scant material for history. 

The numbering of the people, with a view to stricter military service, which has already 
been, noticed as provoking the restlessness of the nation and incurring the rebuke of God, was 
undertaken at this time, and abandoned almost as soon as begun. Of principal interest as 
connected with this incident was the purchase from Araunah, the Jebusite, of his threshing 
floor as a place for sacrifice, for this spot on Mount Moriah, where the plague was stayed, 1 was 
ultimately chosen as the site for the Holy of Holies of the great Temple, which Solomon erected. 

And it was during these quiet years, while the whole land prospered, that David was 
amassing material and vast treasure in gold and silver, and laying plans for that structure, 
which he might not erect in fact, but the joy of preparing for which was not denied him. But 
calmly as the sunset of his life might draw on, the approach of his three score years and ten 
finds him sinking under the burden of premature old age. The natural vigor of his originally 
firm constitution had been shaken by his early dangers and exposures; while the wranglings of 
the palace, and the blighted promise of so many of his children had worn upon his mind, and 
through the mind upon the body. 

Overborne at length by infirmities, he takes to his bed and is less and less able to attend 
to the affairs of his kingdom. Adonijah, a second Absalom, takes advantage of the king’s 
weakness to intrigue for the succession after the death of his father, which event cannot be far 
removed. He rides forth in state, after the fashion of his ill-starred brother, and seeks to win 
over the populace. He gains the favor of Joab, who has always been faithful to David, but is 
not well disposed toward Solomon, who is whispered to be David’s choice as heir to the throne. 
Abiathar, also, the elder high priest, and many of the officers of the army, and the rest of the 
king’s sons, favor the ambitious designs of Adonijah. 

Following almost to the letter the plans of Absalom, though omitting to ask the king’s 
consent, Adonijah invites his friends to a feast at a spring outride the walls, in the course of 
which it is his purpose to assume the sovereignty, claiming that his bedridden father is unable 
to perform the duties of king. But the bold scheme is balked by the loyalty of Nathan, who, 
in concert with Bathsheba, wins David’s consent to have Solomon proclaimed king, with all 
show of civil and military authority. 

Soon after this, as if his life’s work were well done, David composes himself for death. 
Naturally his mind reverts to the experiences of the past, and to the hopes of the kingdom. 
Happily the last hymn of the old monarch, embodying these thoughts, has been preserved in 
the historical books, though not included in the Psalter. Despite the king’s weakness, the 
same trust in God and the triumph of righteousness, which adorned his earlier verse, breathes 
out in these rugged lines. He recounts his lowly origin, and acknowledges that it was God 
who gave him the kingdom, and put the words of inspiration upon his lips, 

“David, the son of Jesse, saith, 

And the man who was raised on high saith, 

The anointed of the God of Jacob, 


See supra, p. 32; also II. Samuel xxiv, 16. 



CAREER OF DAVID REVIEWED. 


511 


And the sweet psalmist of Israel: 

The spirit of the Lord spoke by me, 

And his word was upon my tongue.” 

Contemplating the prospects awaiting his son, if lie rule righteously, the aged singer 
continues: 

“The God of Israel said, 

The Rock of Israel spake to me: 

One that ruleth over men righteously, 

That ruleth in the fear of God, 

He shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, 

A morning without clouds; 

When the tender grass springeth out of the earth, 

Through clear shining after rain.” 


Modestly lie confesses that his own rule has sometimes been wanting, but still with joy 
lests on the suie covenant God has made with him, that his house shall grow and prosper, 
saying: 


“Verily, my house is not so with God; 

Yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, 
Ordered in all things and sure : 

For it is all my salvation, and all my desire, 
Although he maketh it not to grow.” 


But there are ungodly men who regard not earthly rulers, nor even the King of Kings — 
men fierce and sanguinary. 01 such, like the sons of Zeruiah, whose hands were too heavy for 
David, his son Solomon must beware. They must be tamed with the strong hand, and yet, 
despite all their power, they shall be brought to naught. 

“ But the ungodly shall be all of them as thorns to be thrust away, 

For they cannot be taken with the hand : 

But the man that toucheth them 

Must be armed with iron and the staff of a spear; 

And they shall be utterly burned with fire in their place.” 


If, along with the expressions of confidence in the hymn, there seems to be a minor strain 
of struggle and sorrow, it is no more than what might be expected from a heart that had known 
what life is, with its ofttimes baffled purposes, and its griefs impinging so closely on its joys. 
Dean Stanley recognizes it as a faithful representation of David’s experiences, and pronounces 
it the “ fitting memorial of the man who was at once the king and the prophet, the penitent and 
saint of the ancient church.” 1 

It was at the age of seventy, according to Josephus, 2 that David died, having reigned 
over Judea in Hebron seven and a half years, and over all Israel in Jerusalem for thirty-three. 
As with Samuel, such was the veneration for his memory that the rigidity of oriental custom 
respecting burials was relaxed, and his body was deposited in a rock-hewn sepulcher within the 
city walls. The site of this tomb was still pointed out in the days of Jesus, but has since been 
lost. But, though remembrance of his burial place is forgotten, the magnanimity of the man, 
his gentle kindness, his wise rule as king, and his whole-hearted devotion to God, will ever 
endure. He never usurped the liberties of his people. He did not employ his great powers 
as king for his private advantage. He did not make his judicial administration the engine of 
oppression. He harbored no petty revenges. His fealty to the house of Saul, under circum¬ 
stances that might have warranted the severest reprisals, was unswerving. From first to last he 
was in sympathy with both priests and prophets, thus showing that he was fulfilling the higher 


Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” II, p. 155. 


2 Josephus, “ Antiquities,” VII, xv, 2. 



512 


SUBLIME CHARACTER OF DAVID. 


aims of the theocratic kingdom. He found the land distracted and trodden under the heel of a 
foreign foe, and lifted it to the rank of the ancient empires of Phoenicia or Egypt. The national 
worship was crude, but he gave it purity and dignity, and a supremacy over the affections of 
Israel which it never lost. No man ever felt more deeply the superintending providence of God. 
Maurice explains this by “ the continuity, the successiveness, of the steps in his history, which 
assured him that God’s hand had been directing the whole of it.” 1 Having this conviction, he 
has sung this consciousness of the divine leading by harp and psalm into the souls, not only of 
his own race, but also of all, whether Jews or Christians, who are believers in the God of the 
Bible. 

If we touch on his one point of weakness, it is well to remember that he was a man like 
others, and that he ruled in a barbarous time. Wellhausen remarks of this, “ Even his 
conduct in the affair of Uriah is not by any means wholly to his discredit; not many kings 
can be mentioned who would have shown repentance, public and deep, such as he manifested 
at Nathan’s rebuke.” 2 

Barring this one fault, his career is almost ideal. Because of his abiding faithfulness the 
Scripture speaks of him as a man after God’s own heart. No higher encomium is pronounced 
on the later conduct of the people than that they walked in the ways of David and Solomon. 
The Sage of Chelsea, no mean critic of men, is willing to sit at David’s feet and listen to his 
life and history as they stream out through the psalms, “ the truest emblem ever given us of 
a man’s moral progress and warfare here below.” Carlyle sees here, not moral delinquency, 
hut the “faithful struggle of an earnest soul toward what is good and best; struggle often 
baffled — sore baffled — driven as into entire wreck; yet a struggle never ended, ever with 
tears, repentance, true unconquerable purpose begun anew.” 3 


1 Maurice, “ Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament,” p. 57. 

3 Carlyle, “Heroes and Hero Worship,” p. 72. 


2 “History of Israel,” p 455. 







CHAPTER VIII. 

THE YOUNG PRINCE SOLOMON. 


^PHE young prince Solomon, to whom the sovereignty had been transferred before the death 
J- of his father, entered upon a reign, which, however somber its close, as a whole is justly 
regarded as one of the most magnificent in the annals of kings. At the time of his accession 
he must have been about twenty years of age, reminding us in the responsible duties pressing 
upon his youth of that remarkable circle of sovereigns, who in the sixteenth century were so 
early burdened with the affairs of nations. 1 2 

The child of parents both of whom were renowned for their personal beauty, we are not 
surprised that the chance allusions of Scripture writers, as well as the traditions of his people, 
uniformly represent him as the possessor of rare personal attractions. As to his preparation 
for his great future, we are to regard him as more fortunate in his ancestry than in his training. 
In that polygamous household of David the young prince could have had but scant acquaint¬ 
ance with his father; while the character of his mother, Bathsheba, the too-willing paramour 
of the king, and the ambitious intrigante of the palace, forbids the supposition that he could 
have gained much profitable instruction from this source. From Nathan’s interest in securing 
the succession in his favor it is imagined that the lad may have had this‘faithful prophet as 
tutor; and we may well believe from David’s delight in music and song that his favorite child 
was well taught in these accomplishments, as well as in the more active exercises of arms. And 
yet, as the youngest of David’s sons, 3 his early years must have been passed in comparative 
retirement. 

He is brought in a single day from the shadow of obscurity by the rash act of the schem¬ 
ing Adonijali, who, trusting in the cooperation of Joab the captain of the host, and of Abiathar 
the high priest, and even more in the age and infirmities of the bedridden king, appoints a feast 
at the stone Zoheleth, not far from the spring Rogel, in the course of which he intends to 
announce himself king in place of David. But the precipitancy of the act, in not first securing 
the king’s concurrence, defeats the enterprise. For, while his friends are eating of his feast, 
and are raising the cry, “ God save King Adonijah ! ” Bathsheba and Nathan are carrying the 
tidings of the incipient revolt to the decrepit monarch. 

Justly incensed at the slight against his authority, David swears an oath to Bathsheba that 
Solomon shall be king after him, and bids Nathan that self-same day seat Solomon upon his 
own mule, and, taking the royal guard, proceed to Gihon and anoint him there king over 
Israel. Not a moment is lost in obedience to this eminently prudent instruction. The guard is 
summoned and the line formed. The young prince is seated in royal state upon the mule that 
is kept sacredly for the monarch’s use, and the triumphal march to Gihon is commenced. 

As the line advances and the significance of the pageant is understood, the people follow 
with every demonstration of joy. At Gihon the ceremony of anointing was performed, Zadok 
the priest officiating, and using a horn of consecrated oil which he had brought from the 
tabernacle. At this official act, which confirmed the new king in possession of the scepter, 
the people piped with pipes, and greeted their new ruler with such enthusiastic exclamation, as 
the sacred historian declares with oriental hyperbole, “ that the earth was rent with the sound 
of them.” 

The respective situations of Gihon and Zoheleth emphasize the dramatic situation. If 
Gihon, as Major Conder insists, 3 be the springhead of En-Rogel, it was between Adonijah’s 

1 Henry VIII., crowned at 18; Francis I., at 20; and Charles V., as Emperor of Germany, at 19. 

2 1. Chronicles iii, 5. 3 “ Handbook,” p. 335. 


513 



514 


ACCESSION OF SOLOMON 


company and the city, and when Solomon was crowned he must have been in full view 
of the presumptuous elder brother and his supporters. In such a case it would hardly seem 
to have required the friendly offices of Jonathan, the son of Abiathar, to announce to the 
conspirators that their cause was lost. The city was in possession of Solomon, and Benaiah 
the captain of the guard, and all his men were committed to the new allegiance. 

At once the terrified guests separate, each going his own way. Adonijah seeks refuge in 
the Sanctuary, where he catches hold of the horns of the altar in his abject terror. We are 
happy to recognize in Solomon’s first executive act an unexpected magnanimity of spirit. He 
well understood that if Adonijah had succeeded in his enterprise he would have been put to 
death, in accordance with settled oriental usage, which still held in Turkey into the nineteenth 
century. But in his benignant confidence in the impregnable strength of his own position, he 
pardons his brother, on condition that he plots no further mischief, and generously bids him go 
to his own house. 

Still, to further establish the new administration while David is yet living, a great convo¬ 
cation of the chieftains of the tribes and the principal officers of the kingdom is summoned at 
the capital, and the old monarch, weak and trembling, presents his son to the representatives of 
the nation. He commits both prince and subjects to faithful service for God in a speech full 
of tender pathos, and transfers into Solomon’s hands the plans and the treasure laid up for the 
building of the Temple. The historian records among the notable incidents of the day that the 
king, in blessing the assembly and the young ruler, stands upon his feet, supported doubtless 
by his attendants. So, long after, the beloved John, when he could not stand alone, was 
helped to rise while he breathed forth his beautiful admonition, “ Little children, love one 
another.” Apparently this was David’s last public appearance before his decease, which 
followed soon after. 

Hardly were the obsequies of the late king over, when a solemn festival of accession was 
held at Gibeon, the site of the old Sanctuary, where Zadok was ministering at the altar. It was 
a ceremony long to be remembered, for it was conducted on a scale of profuse magnificence, in a 
measure prophetic of the splendor of the reign about to be inaugurated. Accompanied by all 
the dignitaries of the civil and military list, and all the princes and heads of houses, Solomon 
went in state to the “ High Place,” which overlooked all the portion that had been assigned to 
the tribe of Judah. On arrival, through the generosity of the king, a thousand sacrifices were 
offered, and solemn services of worship held, which must have continued for days. 

During this festival occurred the night vision, in the course of which the young ruler made 
the decision of his life. ‘Ask what I shall give thee,” was the voice of the Lord; and the 
response of his heart was not for a wider kingdom, not for the heaping up of riches, not for the 
crushing of his enemies, not for length of days, but rather for what Dean Stanley calls “ the 
ideal answer for such a prince ” 1 — an understanding heart to judge his people, so that he 
might discern good from bad. It was a better choice than the many make, though not by any 
means the best. David, in his whole-souled dependence on God, would have sought deeper 
consecration of spirit. Taught by what we observe afterward, we catch the hollow ring of this 
word “ wisdom.” Had it included the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom, the 
chronicler would have been enabled to dwell with more edification on the later events of a life 
which opened so auspiciously. 

But unfortunately this prince had been trained more in the form than in the fact of 
religion, and to regard the magnificent surroundings of an ornate public worship as of greater 
value than the intimate communion of the soul with God. Anil yet, because in the main the 
request was good, and also because, whether asked in vision or sought in the voluntary conse¬ 
cration of faculties on some single purpose, each man is given some supreme desire, whether it 


1 Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” II, p. 195. 



A STRONG GOVERNMENT—DEATH OF JOAB 


515 


be the learning of an Erasmus, the riches of a Croesus, the conquests of an Alexander, or the 
souls of men for a Paul, the Lord blessed Solomon with insight and wisdom and such keen 
penetration of human motives that the memory of it lingers still in our common speech, and in 
all the traditions of the East. 

That the young king was not a mere weakling of the court, but rather a man of singularly 
ripe discernment, and well qualified to give sound judgment, was soon demonstrated in a way 
that impressed itself on the oriental imagination. As he sits in his palace gate to decide the 
causes of the people, two women approach, each claiming the one child as her own. To settle 
this obscure question of motherhood Solomon calls for a sword and bids his officer divide the 
child and give a half to each. The one was content with this, but the other cried out to spare 
the child and give it alive to her rival. At this the king gave the babe to the woman whose 
heart yearned for the saving it, declaring that she was the true mother. In thus promptly 
eliciting testimony from the pleadings of maternal affection, the king had judged the case, and 
honored himself; for the nation heard and respected the ruler’s wisdom, rejoicing that God 
was with him. But that the young king had learned the difficult art of governing, is even 
more apparent to the western mind from his decision in dealing with Adonijah and the other 
conspirators, after they had made a second attempt against him. For the elder brother, in 
place of feeling grateful for the king’s indulgence in overlooking his former attempt to seize the 
throne, seems to have taken this leniency as a token of weakness. He consults with Joab and 
Abiathar, and such others as he could reach, and at length wins over Batlisheba, the queen- 
mother, whose influence in a polygamous court is always commanding, to prefer his request for 
Abishag, the beautiful Shunamite, for his wife. How he could have imagined that Solomon 
would be blind to the purport of this petition is not clear. To possess oneself of the late king’s 
concubine leaves but one step to the throne. It has been suggested that, as Abishag was more 
a nurse to David than a bride, Adonijah may have supposed that his ultimate purpose might be 
overlooked. 

If so, he reckoned without his host. For no sooner does Batlisheba prefer the request than 
Solomon, in an outburst of justifiable wrath, declares that his brother might as well have asked 
for the kingdom. It is now no puppet king who holds the throne. Conspiracy may not 
sharpen its fangs under the shadow of his scepter. Adonijah has abused his pardon, and so 
Benaiah, the captain of the guard, is bidden to do his office as against a public foe. The 
abettors of treason are also dealt with as becomes a king. Because of his faithful services 
to David, Abiathar, the high priest, is spared, but exiled to his patrimonial estate, and Zadok, 
who had been his coadjutor in the priestly office, is installed as the high priest of the kingdom. 
Joab’s punishment was more summary. At tidings of Adonijali’s death, the captain of the host, 
now a gray-haired old man, fled to Gibeon, and there took refuge at the horns of the altar in 
the Sanctuary. His life had been filled with violence. He had been faithful to David, but 
through his knowledge of the king’s guilty secret had held a rod of terror over the throne. He 
had murdered Abner and Amasa, and had slain Absalom in violation of the king’s express 
command. Now, at last, vengeance tracks his footsteps. Valiant in battle, he now cowers in 
fear for his life, reminding us of that Jeffreys, who begged the guard not to let the mob kill 
him, and of the Robespierre, who, after sending so many to the guillotine, is condemned by the 
Mountain to the tumbril and the knife. As he had slain both Abner and Amasa to maintain 
his post as commander-in-chief of the national militia, there seems a just Nemesis in his falling 
into the hands of Benaiah, his most prominent competitor for the honors and emoluments of 
his high office. The Sanctuary was never intended to protect an outlaw, and so by order from 
the throne the cringing Joab is torn from the altar, to be cut down by the captain of the guard. 
It is a lamentable end, but it justifies the testimony of Scripture respecting the violent man, 

that his mischief shall return upon his own head. 

35 


CHAPTER IX. 

SOLOMON IN HIS GLORY. 


rpHE vigor of administration displayed in smothering the beginnings of conspiracy was soon 
-L visible in every department of Solomon’s extensive realm. 

Edom and Syria took advantage of the confusion arising from a change of ruler to raise the 
standard of revolt; and some of the subject Canaanites, who were restless under the servitude 
imposed by David, attempted to regain their freedom, and made the little principality of Gesliur 
a rallying place of insurrection. But so weak were their efforts that Benaiah was able to 
suppress them with his regular force, without necessity of calling out the national reserves. 
Wellhausen, it is true, complains of Solomon for not having crushed Rezon, after the battle of 
Hamath, and so prevented his building up a new Syrian power at Damascus . 1 But this judg¬ 
ment is based upon the whole issue of Solomon’s reign, with all its later corrupting influences, 
and loses sight of the policy which the king followed so successfully in his earlier years, of win¬ 
ning alliances by friendship. Had the glory of the kingdom continued, and the attachment of 
the people not been undermined by the exactions of the tax-gatherer and the introduction of 
foreign vices, Jerusalem would have had a tributary in Damascus, rather than an active rival. 

While engaged in repressing these disorders, the king extends his foreign relations, and 
makes an advantageous alliance with Egypt, the daughter of whose Pharaoh he espouses, 
bringing her to Jerusalem with great pomp and festivity. He cements, however, a still more 
important alliance with the Phoenician realm of Tyre, whose king, Hiram, had sent an embas¬ 
sage to congratulate him on his accession to sovereignty. As the Phoenicians were a commercial 
and maritime people, occupying a narrow strip on the Mediterranean shore, and skilled in arts 
and manufactures, but dependent as regards a food supply, the relation between Tyre and 
Jerusalem became mutually advantageous. A brisk trade sprang up between the two nations, 
Phoenicia furnishing the precious metals, and cloths of the richest dyes, and timber from her 
famous cedar forests in the Lebanon ranges, in exchange for the corn, and wine, and olive oil 
from the upland plains of Israel. 

At this time Israel was in its glory. Its territory included all that Solomon had received 
from his father, extending from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, and from Hamath on the 
north to and including Gaza on the south. The population of Jewish origin, not counting the 
subject Canaanites, who had been reduced to a condition of helotry, numbered some five million 
souls, or about five hundred to the square mile . 2 As the land was in a state of profound peace, 
the people had nothing to divert them from the pursuits of industry, and there followed, conse¬ 
quently, a term of marvelous prosperity. The young king reorganized his household and his 
civil list, and with keen appreciation of character appointed the most capable officials and 
administrators. He set Benaiah, who had distinguished himself in the wars of David, as com- 
mander-in-chief of the army of the kingdom, and Zadok as high priest. He created two scribes 
to draw up the royal edicts, and record the annals of his reign. The extension of the court also 
compelled the appointment of a new official, the chamberlain, who was to be superintendent of 
the household, purveyor of supplies and comptroller of expenditures. 

The breadth of this official’s responsibility may be imagined when it is noticed that he was 
supplied with twelve under-officers, one for each month in the year, who were to meet his requi¬ 
sitions by drafts upon the people. The amount of provisions for a single day—some eighteen 

1 “ So far was he from showing military capacity, that he allowed a new Syrian kingdom to arise at Damascus, a far more 

dangerous thing for Israel than that at Zobah, which had been destroyed, and which it succeeded.”—Wellhausen, “ History 
of Israel,” p. 456. 2 Conder, “ Handbook,” p. 281. 

516 




POMP AND WISDOM OF SOLOMON. 


517 


thousand pounds of bread, thirty oxen, a hundred sheep, besides fowl and game — indicates 
that the great king was feeding daily at his table from 10,000 to 12,000 persons; this number 
including the inmates of the palace, the officials of the court, the royal guardsmen, and the 
servants of the household. Another official of more ominous character is appointed to have 
charge of the forced labor, which the king required in his various enterprises. The man chosen 
for this post was Adoniram, a name which, after his long service, extending into the reign of 
Relioboam, came to be regarded with detestation and horror. 

As the pomp and circumstance of the throne increases, Solomon raises a force of 12,000 
horsemen, and rides in his journeys about the city like the kings of Egypt in his own richly 
carved chariot, attended by a mounted guard. New as was this consequence of royalty to 
Jerusalem, it was no less welcome. The fame of the gifted ruler goes far and wide. He 
governs magnificently but justly. He throttles all misrule and oppression with a firm hand, 
so that every man dwelt safely under his own vine and fig tree from Dan to Beersheba. He 
cultivates to some extent 'the arts of music and literature. Tradition, which busies itself with 
his “ wisdom,” credits him with composing 3,000 proverbs, 1,005 songs, and a disquisition on 
animals, birds, and plants, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop on the wall. Of these 
writings there remain four psalms, 1 whose subjects connect themselves with the king; a portion 
of the Proverbs, which was compiled with others by King Hezekiah, and the Book of Ecclesi¬ 
astes, which, with its speech of the vanity of earthly possessions in comparison with trust in 
God, appears as the fitting expression of the king’s old age. If, for various reasons, we may 
doubt whether Solomon was the author of the Song of Songs, we may still trace its origin to 
his time and influence. The sententious wisdom of the Proverbs, “ gifts to the people, not the 
produce of the people,” 2 is precisely what should be expected from the practical mind of a king 
who comprehended the value of prudence, intelligence, and a fit preparation for life. If, on the 
one hand, we may agree with Mr. Whitelaw Reid that the best treatise on business for a young 
man just starting in the world is the Book of Proverbs, we may also thank its author for 
establishing so clearly that there is no wisdom without goodness and virtue, and that all vicious 
courses are the synonym of contemptible folly. 

But more than in the making of books, the king displays the acuteness of his mind in his 
measures for extending the commerce of his country. A nation is prosperous when it is most 
happily and heartily employed. Reference has been already made to the reciprocal trade of 
Israel and Tyre. This was, however, but the beginning of a more extensive traffic, which 
reached out for the commerce of the East, controlling the trade between Egypt and Damascus, 
and sending its ships far over the sea. For once a great king turned merchant, and made 
commerce a government monopoly. To facilitate trade with Babylon he is said to have founded 
Tadmor in the desert, the town which became the seat of Zenobia, and the prey of the ambition 
of Aurelian. From Egypt he brought fine linens, and horses, and chariots, trading them off 
for gold and silver to the Syrian and Hittite kings, and sending back to the Nile country the 
rich wines for which Israel was famous. 

But Solomon’s most audacious foreign enterprise was his sending out shipping from the 
Red Sea. With the assistance of his royal friend of Tyre, he builds a fleet at Ezion-Geber, 
which presently becomes a busy port, and the home of many Hebrews. 3 Lading with the 
products of Babylon and Tyre, the ships sailed away to the East, to return after a three years’ 
voyage, bringing commodities the nature of which shows that their destination must have been 
the mouth of the Indus, in Asia. The gold of Ophir, 4 the white tusks of the elephant, the 
ebony and sandal wood, the hideous ape and the gorgeous peacock, filled with amazement the 

1 The Second, the Forty-fifth, the Seventy-second, and the One Hundred and Twenty-seventh. 

2 Stanley, “ Jewish Church,” II, p. 287. 3 1. Kings ix, 26. 

4 Lenormant & Chevalier, “Ophir, the country of Abhira, near the present province of Guzerat.”—“ Ancient History of 
the East,” I, p. 145. 


518 


BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE. 


eyes of the gazers at the returning caravans, climbing the hills toward Jerusalem. The profits 
of these ventures, conducted on so magnificent a scale, must have been enormous, and soon the 
land is rolling in riches. Silver became “ as stones ” 1 in Solomon’s capital, and the king s 
great men began to vie with each other in the erection of palaces and the laying out of gardens; 
and commodities which had been previously unknown, grew first into luxuries, and then into 
the commonest necessities. 

But the king had need of all the treasure which his ships and caravans were bringing, 
for he was even more a builder than his father, David. On the frontiers he erected cities for 
chariots and horsemen, and fortified many places on the lines of travel toward Damascus and 
Egypt, believing, no doubt, that he enjoys peace best who is best prepared for war. 

In Jerusalem he constructs a new palace for himself and his extensive court, that of David 
having been altogether outgrown. He builds a great aqueduct, at immense cost of labor and 
treasure, to bring water from Bethlehem. He completes the fortifications of the city, which 
David had begun, and renders his city impregnable against any foe. On the mountains of 
Lebanon he constructs a summer palace, munificent in all its appointments. He lays out great 
parks at Etham, like the paradises of the Persian monarchs; and, showing that he has regard 
for something higher than the pleasures of the moment, he builds in the capital city a school, 
or college, for the instruction of the young. 

But his most memorable architectural work was the Temple, the House of God, the 
building of which had been intrusted to him by his father, and the carrying forward of which 
he had accepted as a sacred duty. Having the plans which David had prepared, and the vast 
treasure from David’s store, and the voluntary contributions of the princes, it was necessary 
only to organize the workmen and commence the structure. The site chosen was on Mount 
Moriah, the threshing floor of Araunah, on which David had erected an altar to commemorate 
his deliverance. Owing to the narrowness of space at the summit of this hill, it was necessary 
to provide room for the superstructure and the outlying courts. This was done by building up 
heavy retaining walls on the hillsides, the inner space being filled with earth to the proposed 
level of the Temple floor. Much of the stone required was hewn from quarries situated under¬ 
neath the city. The solid limestone rock which forms the mountain is now honeycombed under 
Jerusalem with galleries from which the stone has been taken, and in one of these can still be 
seen a huge block, lying as it was left by Solomon’s quarrymen. For the master stonecutters, 
since there was no one in Israel trained to such labor, Solomon was dependent on his friend 
Hiram, who gave him skilled stonecutters from Gebal—men who could plan the cutting out of 
the rough ashlars, and dressing them for their place in foundation or wall. Recent excavations 
at Jerusalem reveal the character of this ancient stonework. The west, south and east walls of 
the harem inclosure are laid in cyclopean blocks, without mortar; and, starting as they do from 
the bed rock, are evidently as they were placed by the Temple builders. Many of them have 
letters painted in red, 2 the markings of the architect to indicate their position in the wall. It is 
a remarkable confirmation of the accuracy of Scripture, that these quarry signs and mason 
marks are Phoenician characters, 3 and have hitherto been found only in Sidon. The timbers 
for the Temple were cut in Lebanon from the famous cedar groves, were then dragged to the 
sea, floated in rafts to Joppa, and thence hauled laboriously up the steep slopes to their destina¬ 
tion. The heavy metal work, largely in the form of bronze castings for the great laver and the 
pillars before the porch, was wrought under the supervision of another Tyrian, named like the 
Phoenician king, but son of a woman of the tribe of Naphtali. 

From the moment the corner stone was laid the army of laborers toiled on without cessa¬ 
tion. There were 80,000 workmen, under 3,300 overseers, besides 70,000 bearers of burdens. 
The foundation was laid; the Holy House and its courts were inclosed; the structure was 


*1. Kings x, 21. 


2 Conder, “ Handbook,” p. 316. 


3 Harper, “ The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” p. 351. 



THE TEMPLE DESCRIBED. 


519 


beautified with, boards of cedar, with carved figures of flowers, palms, and cherubim, all overlaid 
with beaten gold. Seven years and six months were occupied in the work, during which 
time “there was neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron, heard in the house.” 1 All 
the stones had been fitted in the quarries, and were laid in mysterious silence. 

“ workman’s steel, no ponderous axes rung; 

Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprung.” 

When an exploration was recently made of the Temple wall, and a shaft was sunk to the 
bed rock along its face, a mass of black earth was encountered, evidently a deposit made during 
the building of the Temple, as it contained jar handles and bits of Phoenician pottery. But 
there were no ehippings of stone, as would inevitably have been the case had not the stone been 
dressed before being brought to the place. Mr. Harper, of the Exploration Fund, regards this 
as “ one of the most splendid confirmations of the truth of Holy Writ.” 2 

The entire structure when completed was of surpassing splendor. The Holy House was 
not of large dimensions, since it was intended solely as the dwelling place for the Most High. 
In consequence, it was but about ninety feet in length, and thirty in breadth, being in each 
dimension double the corresponding measurement of the Tabernacle. Its form of architecture 
was most probably Phoenician, although Assyrian influences seem to have been felt in the 
construction of the brazen oxen to uphold the great brazen sea. 

Approaching the inclosure from the eastern side, the beholder entered a colonnade or 
cloister, which formed the eastern barrier. This opened upon a spacious quadrangle, set with 
trees, beyond which was a wall, built of stone and topped with a cornice of cedar. Passing up 
a flight of steps into the inner court, the visitor would observe before him the great brazen 
altar, the place of the morning and evening sacrifice. It rose to the height of ten cubits,’ 
was twenty cubits square, and was approached by an incline. The altar presented an exterior 
of bronze, but the inclosing fabric held a mass of stones and earth, in accordance with the 
Levitical requirement. From its height it was readily visible to the worshipers assembled in 
the outer court. To the left of the observer stood the great brazen sea, the place of ablutions 
made necessary by the frequent washings of the priests. We here again observe the wisdom of 
Solomon in his provision of an ample supply of water for the cleansing of the Temple and the 
altar, after the frequent sacrifices ordered by the Jewish ritual. Vast cisterns had been hewn 
out of the solid rock, one of which alone was forty-three feet in depth, and could hold 3,000,000 
gallons of water. 3 Beyond the space occupied by the altar and the brazen sea, on an elevation 
of the rock, stood the Holy House, with its triple row of chambers, for the use of the priests, 
at the sides, and with its partition within, dividing the Holiest from the Holy Place. The 
furnishings of this Sanctuary were the duplicates of those in the Tabernacle, though the 
one golden candlestick was replaced by ten whose branching arms supported the lamps which 
shed a soft illumination, which it was the care of the priests to never let die out. Everything 
entering into the construction or decoration of the Sanctuary was of the costliest material, in 
token that to God belonged always the noblest and the best. 

When the work was at last completed, nearly a year in addition elapsed in preparation for 
the elaborate ceremonies of dedication. From this time on the services at Gibeon were discon¬ 
tinued. As Bossuet has well remarked, “ The unity of God was symbolized in the unity of his 
Temple,” and for this symbolism to be felt it was imperative that all Israel should worship at 
the single shrine. 

On the fourteenth day of the seventh month, in the presence of a vast multitude assembled 
from every part of the land, the old Tabernacle was brought from Gibeon, and the Ark from its 
resting place on Zion, and the priests and Levites in solemn procession, the king leading the 

I. Kings vi, 7. 2 Harper, “The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” p. 352. 8 Conder, “ Handbook,” p. 363. 



520 


THE FAME OF SOLOMON. 


way, bear the sacred relics to their destination within the inclosure. The trumpets sound, the 
choir in antiphonal chorus sings the praises of the Lord, and Solomon, spreading forth his 
hands, utters the prayer of consecration, beseeching God to accept the sacrifice and bless the 
nation. And when he “had made an end of praying,” so goes the record, “the fire came 
down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the 
Lord filled the house.” The Shekinali, the wonderful manifestation of the divine glory, 
which had flooded the Mercy Seat in the Tabernacle of the Wilderness, now lighted the Holy 
of Holies with its mysterious effulgence, the visible token of the approving presence of the 
Most High. 

It was the supreme day of Solomon’s reign. No other man in the kingdom enjoyed such 
prominence; for, as king, he represented the majesty of the nation ; as builder, he reached the 
completion of a structure sufficient of itself to immortalize his name; and, as priest, he offered 
the sacrifices and blessed the people. For the moment he stood as the type of the One King, 
who, as Prophet, Priest, and King, was to be himself the One Sacrifice for the saving of men. 

The wonderful prosperity of the city and the reputation for wisdom of its king soon 
became a household word among the nations round about. The multitude of his workmen 
passing to and fro; the caravans of the merchants, the mariners on distant voyages, all carried 
abroad the glory of his kingdom, till the fame of it filled the East. Great princes were happy 
to court his favor, and sent him embassies with rich presents, vases of silver and gold, and 
armor for the soldiers, and rarest spices and balsams, and pack mules, and horses for the cavalry 
and the chariots. 

Some, not content with the hearing, came to witness this splendor with their own eyes. 
The most notable of these was that princess, whom Scripture and tradition alike name the 
Queen of Sheba. She came from her home at the southernmost point of Arabia, with an 
immense train of camels, and bearing the costliest gifts, the rich spices of her country, and a 
hundred and twenty talents of gold. There are old tales current of her tests for the wisdom of 
the king—the pearl to be drilled, the diamond with the zigzag hole to be threaded, and the 
crystal goblet to be filled with water neither from the clouds nor the earth, all of which he 
solved without delay. And when, besides this, she witnessed the arrangements of Solomon’s 
extensive household, the throngs of officers in waiting, and the bravery of their apparel; and 
when, still more, she observed the approach by which he entered the House of the Lord, her 
admiration passed all bounds, and she declared that the half had not been told her. But we 
may believe that she had better reason to rejoice in the king’s wisdom, when we notice the 
significance of the statement that she came after hearing of the fame of Solomon “ concerning 
the name of the Lord.” 1 The wise man and the earnest woman, when “ she communed with 
him of all that was in her heart,” 2 consulted on the deeper problems of human life, of duty and 
hope, and of the nature and providence of God. A memorial of this visit was long believed to 
be found in the balsam trees of Jericho, which, it was said, were propagated from a plant which 
she gave to Solomon; but a better memorial appears in the ease with which the Maccabeans 
propagated their monotheistic beliefs in Southern Arabia, the influences of the purer teaching 
which the Queen had learned of Solomon lingering till that late time. 


1 1. Kings x, 1. 


2 II. Chronicles ix, 1. 




QUEEN OF SHEBA AND SOLOMON 


















































CHAPTER X. 

SOLOMON’S MAGNIFICENCE ON ITS DARKER SIDE. 


TAUT all this magnificence of Solomon has its darker side. He imitated the royal state of 
J-A imperial sovereigns; he copied, also, their vices. It is always perilous for a ruler, or for 
a nation, to surrender to the seductive influences of foreigners, with their luxurious customs. 
Persia was stronger in the simplicity of her early virtues, inbreathed with her mountain air, 
than when with vastly greater resources she had adopted the ways of Babylon. Roman man¬ 
hood meant conquest; Roman manhood, enervated by contact with oriental sybaritism, meant 
decline and overthrow by the barbarian, whose blood was still undefiled. A like peril now 
confronts America, in the possible incorporation into her life of laxities in thought and conduct 
which the founders of the nation fled to the wilderness to escape. It is best that a people 
should live its own life, and that, if it assimilates from other lands, it take only those practices 
which encourage its youth in virtue. The subjection of the once wise king has its warning for 
all who are reckless respecting the insidious encroachments on the integrity of American 
manners and institutions. 

It was un-Israelitish for the king to marry the Princess of Egypt; but, apart from the 
precedent, she seems to have brought no particular evil in her train. At the time of her 
espousal Solomon had serious scruples about lodging her in the city, on account of the prox¬ 
imity 1 of the Sacred Ark. Clearly, therefore, at that time the objection to her coming was 
confined to her own alien faith; and as for her conduct afterward there is no intimation of her 
having introduced either a priest or an altar of her ancestral worship. 

But not content with the single wife, Solomon takes princess after princess from the 
surrounding nations, until he builds up a harem, in the sharp characterization of Lenormant, 
already “scandalously full,” 2 by the influx of a horde of strange women of the Moabites, 
Ammonites, Edomites, Hittites, and Sidonians. Drawn away from the simple purity of his 
faith in God by their influence, he presently sanctions strange worship in his city, and also for 
himself olfers sacrifice to the Sidonian Ashtoreth, to the Ammonitish god Milcom, and to the 
bloodthirsty Chemosh of Moab. 

But this uxorious polygamy, with its resultant relapse into the abominations of idolatry, 
carried another grievous evil in its wake. To maintain this vast seraglio, with its multitude of 
servants and eunuchs, of singing men and singing women, involved an extravagance of expend¬ 
iture that might bankrupt any kingdom. If these pampered creatures of the court may not 
have said, like the luxurious nobility of France under Louis XV., “After us, the deluge,” 
they were certainly assisting to bring it on. However justly the king might desire to rule, 
in the constant drain to which the royal exchequer was subject, the scepter must bear with 
increasing weight upon the necks of the people. 

It is an ominous picture—that of 153,000 slaves, torn from their wives and children, and 
forced to toil in the quarries of Jerusalem or the forests of Lebanon—but it illustrates the 
callousness for human suffering which existed in the king’s heart at an early period, and which 
augmented with the natural growth of his necessities. The bitter complaints which the men of 
Israel preferred to Rehoboam respecting the severity of his father’s taxings 3 suffice to prove 
that the sufferings of the people were almost intolerable. The splendor of the throne had cast 

1 II. Chronicles viii, 11. 2 Lenormant & Chevalier, “ Ancient History of the East,” I, p. 145. 3 1. Kings xii, 14. 

523 



LAST YEARS OF SOLOMON. 


523 

its shadow upon the nation, and the extravagance of the palace had resulted in a practical 
despotism, 

“The despotism of vice — 

The weakness and the wickedness of luxury-— 

The negligence — the apathy — the evils 
Of sensual sloth — produce ten thousand tyrants, 

Whose delegated cruelty surpasses 
The worst acts of one energetic master, 

However harsh and hard in his own bearing .” 1 

Some intimations of his decline came to the king in his later years. The buoyancy of the 
people, which had been sustained by the early prosperity of the kingdom and the unity of the 
national faith, was visibly declining. Under the sun of luxury the rank weeds of effeminacy 
and presumption had been growing in the hearts of the young men until there was a large class 
that scoffed at the prudent restraints of their fathers. In a dream Solomon is warned that his 
kingdom shall be divided because of his apostacy; and Ahijah, the Ahilonite, by an impressive 
rending of his garment, prophesies to Jeroboam that God has given to him the leadership of 
ten out of the twelve tribes of Israel. At a hint of the aspirations of the yo un g man, Solomon 
sends to apprehend him, but he takes refuge in Egypt, to return thence after Solomon’s death 
and set up his kingdom over the northern tribes in Shechem. 

For the rest there is little to say. The chroniclers, who realize that there is little to edify 
in the king’s later years, pass them in silence. Possibly the tales that are current in the East 
of Solomon’s control of the djins of the under world have their basis in his attempting the 
incantations of magic, and dealing in thaumaturgies and incantations. So Victor Hugo, in 
his “ Solomon,” makes him say, 

‘ * Child of guilty kisses, 

Vast, gloomy is my wisdom : demons shun 
To take between high heaven and their abysses, 

A judge but Solomon.” 

But this silence of Scripture respecting one whose morning promise was as the sun rising 
in his strength, is condemnation. If Solomon was the wisest man, we regret that he failed to 
put into practice his best intuitions. He was great, and yet, when we compare him with his 
father, it is a question if the latter was not the greater man. David organized a kingdom out of 
chaos, and transmitted it to his successor, strong in its peaceful power. Solomon accepted the 
kingdom, with all its accumulated treasure, and turned it over to his successor, splitting already 
with the cleavage lines of dismemberment. Graetz, the Jewish historian, alluding to the 
oriental tales which credit Solomon with the possession of magical powers, remarks that his 
kingdom was “ like a world of magic, upbuilt by powerful genii. The magic vanished at his 
death. He did not bequeath to his son his magic ring.” 2 

But as regards influence on the world of mind, while the impression wrought by the 
magnificence of Solomon is the more brilliant, that wrought by the earnest piety of David is far 
greater. The one erects the Temple of stone and costly cedars, the admiration of a few passing 
ages, but which the breath of wars and the torch of the destroyer have laid in the dust; the 
other in his psalms has constructed a temple of thought and devout consolation, which is more 
enduring than time itself. 

On still another count the thoughtful mind experiences more satisfaction in contemplating 
the poet-king. If he turned aside from the path of virtue in a single instance, we are happy 
to feel that he sincerely repented, and that his going out of life was departure into the glory of 
a happier state. But we do not possess this gratifying assurance respecting David’s illustrious 

1 Byron, Sardanapalus.” 2 Graetz, “ History of Israel,” I, p. 366. 



524 


THE SHADOW OF ERROR. 


son. AVe are tolcl that lie sinned; we are nowhere told that he repented. The Book of Eccle¬ 
siastes expresses intelligence of the true wisdom, hut it does not convince us that its author 
followed his own teachings. Farrar has called to mind Oscagna’s great picture in the Campo 
Santo at Florence, in which “Solomon rises slowly and painfully out of his sepulcher at the 
archangel’s summons, ignorant whether to turn to the right or the left, uncertain whether his 
place is to be among the saved or the lost.” 1 

But whatever the great king’s final destiny, if the workman be saved while the work 
perish ; if it shall prove, as in Browning’s optimistic thought, that 

“A sun will pierce 

The thickest cloud earth ever stretched; 

That after Last returns the First, 

Though a wide compass round be fetched; 

That what began best, can’t end worst, 

Nor what God blest once, prove accurst;” 2 

still we must regret the errors that shadowed a life of magnificent promise, and transformed its 
closing picture into the text of a sermon on the “ Vanity of vanities,” rather than a glowing 
panegyric on the wisdom and the virtues, which should have brightened with the flight of years. 

_ c 

1 Farrar, “Solomon, His Life and Times,” p. 162. 2 Robert Browning, “Apparent Failure.” 




DAVID AND ABIGAIL. 













BOOK VIII. 


FROM THE DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE TO THE LAST OF THE KINGS. 

HY 

S 

Rev. Frank M. Bristol, D.D. 

PASTOR METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 


EVANSTON, ILLINOIS. 












BOOK VIII. 


FROM THE DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE TO THE LAST OF THE KINGS. 


CHAPTER I. 

THE'DISRUPTION OF THE NATIONAL UNION. 

rPHE history of ancient nationalisms must forever possess a fascinating interest to the student 
J- who would know the true and divine philosophy of the world’s salvation and progressive 
enlightenment. No chapter, however, in the long and diversified annals of antiquity presents 
a more interesting and important subject for the religious mind to contemplate than that which 
records the origin, development, and decline of the Jewish empire. Unjustly treated as the Jew 
has been by so-called civilized peoples during all these Christian centuries, the record of that 
same Jew, the literature, the religion, the great and righteous ancestors of that Jew, are exer¬ 
cising upon this age and upon the civilization of it a more potent influence than the literature, 
religion, biographies, and national annals of any other race. 

Of all that vicissitudinous Jewish history no period is more sadly and significantly 
instructive than that from the division of the empire to the Babylonian Captivity. This 
may be called the decline and fall of the Jewish empire. Wonderful, indeed, and beyond 
parallel, was that national progress of Israel. Three royal administrations — the reigns of 
Saul, of David, and of Solomon — bring the kingdom to the summit of its greatness. One 
hundred and twenty years of statesmanship and of providence lift these institutionless tribes 
of shepherds and agriculturists up to a nationalism whose unity, power, and prosperity become 
the astonishment and admiration of the world. At Joppa, the harbor-gate of Jerusalem, halts 
the rich commerce of the seas. Thither the sons of Javan drive the vessels of Corinth with 
merchandise of brass and corn; the servants of Hiram come with the ships of distant Tarshisli 
“bringing gold and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks;” the fleets of Ezion-Geber fetch the 
fine gold of Ophir and precious stones of India, and the mariners of Sidon guide the cedar rafts 
and purple-laden galleys of old Tyre. At Jerusalem’s crowded gates wait the caravans which 
bring to her thriving mart the wines and wools of Damascus, the perfumes of Arabia, the sweet 
spices and rare gems of Ethiopia, mayhap the costly silks from the looms of Assyria and China, 
and fine linen from Egypt, with horses and chariots. “ King Solomon passed all the kings of 
the earth in riches and wisdom.” 

With all the glory of Jerusalem’s material prosperity is mingled the light of a superlative 
intellectualism and the splendor of a divine revelation. Although Homer is singing his “Iliad” 
to the Greeks, and Cheops is building the great pyramid at Gizeh, and Thebes and Memphis 
hold the mysteries of mighty faiths and noble sciences, “ all the kings of the earth seek the 
presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom that God hath put in his heart.” 

Alas, that this unwonted national brilliancy should vanish like a meteor and be followed 
by the night and storm! How true is it, as the poet has sadly learned from human history, that 
it is “ the most difficult of tasks to keep heights which the soul is competent to gain ! ” and true 


527 



528 


SEEDS OF NATIONAL DISINTEGRATION. 


it is of nations as of men. Swiftly did Israel gain the heights of national prosperity, but, like 
Lucifer, she fell from her proud eminence to ruin and contempt. This is not a unique national 
experience of sudden decline from united power to disruption, and from honor to shame. 
Parallels may be found in the histories of Babylon, of Athens, and of Rome. Of untold 
magnificence was the reign of Nebuchadnezzar when Babylon became the golden head of the 
great image of empire; but, though her power spread from the Tigris to the Nile, and in all the 
arts of peace she rose to a prosperity which was a marvel and a proverb, her supremacy was 
maintained for only seventy years, and with the ignominy of Belshazzar’s overthrow her name 
became a by-word and her greatness but a memory. That golden hundred years of Athens 
which witnessed the art triumphs of Phidias, learned the sublime philosophy of Socrates and 
Plato, applauded the eloquence of a Pericles, hailed the dramatic genius of Sophocles — opened 
with Marathon and closed with Thermopylae — was, like the age of Solomon, suddenly plunged 
into corruption and chaos. Rome exulted in the rise of her proud empire, in the all-conquering 
sword of Julius Caesar, the eloquence of Tully, the songs of Virgil and Horace, the wisdom of 
Seneca, and the taste of Augustus, claiming the dominion of the civilized world from Ethiopia 
to the Danube and from the Euphrates river to the Atlantic main. But the superiority of her 
arms, the elegance of her manners, the splendor of her art and letters, and the universality of 
her dominion scarce exceed a hundred years of history ere Rome trembles with the premonitions 
of her decline and fall. So soon, alas, may the national vigor be exhausted and the pride of a 
mighty race be humbled. 

The spirit of discontent and rebellion was rapidly developing before Solomon’s reign 
of forty years terminated. In his degeneracy the illustrious son of David not only formed 
alliances with many strange women and idolatrous nations in violation of the theocratic consti¬ 
tution, but he also heaped oppressive burdens of labor and taxation upon the people. Having 
lost that early spirit of devotion which made the building of the temple a willing religious 
service, the people now looked back upon those levies and those toilings in forests and quarries 
as hardships and oppressions for which Solomon must be held responsible. To men who have 
surrendered their religious convictions and turned to a demoralizing and deintellectualizing 
idolatry, what had formerly been done for conscience sake and for the glory of the national 
religion was now reckoned as servitude, wrong, and oppression. Here were men, and the 
children of men, who had made up the levies ordered by Solomon for the building of the 
temple. Thirty thousand had gone to Lebanon; 70,000 became bearers of burdens; 80,000 
were hewers in the mountains. Hardships were, doubtless, suffered by these 180,000 laborers 
not unlike the hardships which were borne by the 360,000 men who toiled through twenty 
years in the construction of the great pyramid in Egypt. 

With all the wealth and enlightenment of the age, the people had their grievances, real or 
imaginary. At the very time when the temple was the joy of the whole earth, and when silver 
was as stones in Jerusalem, as at the time when Rome was grand with marble palaces and rich 
with the tribute of subjugated nations, or as when Athens was flourishing and prosperous in the 
brilliant age of Pericles, the people were losing, if they had not already lost, their ancient 
liberties and were being robbed of a just remuneration for their toil. The displeasure of God, 
kindled by the idolatrous tendency of the times, and the discontent of the people, inspired by 
oppression, were very manifest. Ahijah, therefore, the prophet of the Most High, found a 
willing listener and apt pupil in Jeroboam, the champion of the rights of the common people, 
a man of mighty valor and of industry. The prophet, by a most dramatic illustration, taught 
Jeroboam his own destiny and the fate of the kingdom. He met the future king on the 
highway and, without a word, snatched from his shoulders his new garment, tore it into twelve 
pieces, handed him ten of the pieces and indicated by an act more eloquent than words that 
God was thus to tear the kingdom into fragments and destroy the national unity of the chosen 









j-ijv jaggs 












-1 

L» ■ 5!|® 'If 

; . fu 



1 j|j 


i 

n >%§! 



4 .--i#:T| 



M h y 

=■ 



BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 














































































530 


TYRANNY AND REBELLION. 


people. He indicated further that Jeroboam was to lead the ten tribes in revolt and become 
their king while but two tribes were to remain loyal to the house of David. 

This startling prophecy soon reached the ears of Solomon, who set about to thwart the 
purposes of God by laying plans to kill Jeroboam, whose valor and industry had heretofore 
commended him highly to the king’s favor. The son of Nebat, this stalwart Jeroboam, with 
dreams of royalty and with a new-born ambition for power, found it convenient, as it was 
certainly most discreet and politic, to visit Egypt and seek the protection of King Shishak I. 

Prophecies, however, were out which were not to be recalled. The partition of the 
kingdom of David was inevitable. Rebellion, like subterranean fire intensifying its power for 
earthquake and volcanic eruption, was destined to culminate in revolution. The death of 
Solomon brought national affairs to a crisis. The elevation of Rehoboam, his son, to the 
throne, was the signal for the revolutionary fulfillment of Ahijah’s prophecy. Jeroboam 

hastens up from Egypt, still the champion of the people as against the tyrannical oppression 

of the house of David. As the leader of the growing and politically justifiable rebellion he 
demands reforms from the new administration which will relieve the people of the heavy and 
galling yoke imposed on them by Solomon. The conditions were not wholly unlike those 
which later on in Rome called forth the patriotic Gracchi to champion the oppressed middle 
and lower classes against the prosperous nobles. Nor did they entirely differ from those condi¬ 
tions which gave Cromwell his opportunity in England. There was at least a call for a 

Gracchus or a Cromwell; better still, for a Washington. It is true, there was no purely 

political constitution in existence at that time guaranteeing the rights and liberties of the 
people. Royalty was absolute. Nevertheless, the people, even so early in the history of 
government, believed in the right of petition, and when they presented their grievances to 
Rehoboam they would have been as clearly justified in demanding of him certain guaranteed 
rights and privileges for the people, and certain checks and limitations to royal prerogative, as 
the barons of England were in demanding them of King John. Had the highest wisdom 
prevailed and righteous political ethics been recognized, the result might have been a Magna 
Charta, which would have preserved the unity of Israel, while Shechem, the scene of this 
conference, might have become Israel’s Runnymede. But no, Rehoboam spurned the petition 
of the people. Though the old men of political experience who had formed his father’s cabinet 
counseled moderation and reform, the hot-headed young men whom he had called about him 
advised out-and-out oppression, urging Rehohoam to the tyrannical and despotic utterance: 
“ My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins. And now whereas my father did load 
you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but 
I will chastise you with scorpions.” If the people’s grievances had heretofore been imaginary, 
they now were real. And as in the days of George III., the American colonists had their peti¬ 
tion for right of grievance ignored and their burdens increased until they were forced to the 
Declaration of Independence, so the children of Israel were driven by the spirit of haughty 
tyranny to utter their Declaration of Independence in the memorable words: “ To your tents, 
O Israel.” 

The catastrophe of national partition came with that shout of the people. In vain did 
Rehoboam send Adoram, his chief officer, to arbitrate with the rebels. In the insane rage of 
the moment, that wronged and insulted people stoned the king’s messenger to death. This act 
showed clearly the determination of the revolutionists. Thenceforth, God’s chosen people were 
two nations, at enmity with each other, with God, and with the world. Rehoboam had tested 
the temper of the people to the loss of his chosen officer and now hastened for personal safety 
to Jerusalem. 

The ten tribes elected Jeroboam king of Israel, while Judah and Benjamin followed 
Rehoboam, the hereditary king of the house of David. The division of the Jewish monarchy 



IDOL WORSHIP 






































532 


POLITICAL SHREWDNESS OF JEROBOAM. 


was without doubt the most significant event in the history of that people since the establish¬ 
ment of the monarchy, if not since the original conquest of the land. Relioboam, though 
graced with few virtues, was sensible enough to comprehend the terrible meaning of this great 
revolt against the house of David, and hence he could have possessed but a craven and 
unkingly spirit had he instituted no measures for suppressing the rebellion and restoring the 
unity of the empire. With an alacrity, demonstrative of military genius, he marshalled an 
imposing army of 180,000 warriors to fight against the house of Israel, put down the rebellion, 
and restore the power of the Davidic dynasty. Imagination cannot depict the horrors which 
would have attended a war between these two angered, almost frenzied, sections of one great 
people. It was a merciful providence that interposed and prevented a most bloody and 
unnatural strife between brethren. Shemaiah, the prophet of God, revealed heaven’s opposi¬ 
tion to a conflict of arms; and in the name of the Lord bade the army of Judah disperse and 
every man go to his home, declaring that this calamity of national partition was of God. 
War was providentially averted. Nevertheless, in spirit, in their rivalries, ambitions, and 
hatreds, it may be said: “There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days.” 

We now look upon the formation of the new kingdom of Israel. Whether Rehoboam 
fully understood the power of the Temple or not, certainly Jeroboam was shrewd enough to 
see that the most potent influence that would in the no distant future operate to bring the hearts 
of the rebelling tribes back to the national union was that Temple in Jerusalem and the sacred 
things it stood for. Can there be a doubt, whether Rehoboam was wise enough to discover it or 
not, that, but for the cunning of Jeroboam, the chosen people’s national religion, the faith of 
their fathers, embodied in the sublime symbolism of the Temple and its worship, would have 
proved more powerful than armed legions in subduing rebellion, producing a reaction and 
finally securing a restoration of the national unity? Jeroboam was sagacious enough to see 
that if the people who had revolted should continue to worship at Jerusalem, their hearts might 
turn again to the faith of their fathers and they would be drawn back by their religious convic¬ 
tions to the house of David. To prevent this, a new religion was necessary, a national religion 
whose symbols and worship should be located within the national domains, easy of access to all 
the people, and where they could worship without visiting Jerusalem, at which place they 
would surely fall under the fascinating influence of the grand old faith. If they are to main¬ 
tain their independence, they must sever their religious connection with the Temple as well as 
their political relations to the house of David. If they are to be a great nation of internal 
homogeneity and of recognized national autonomy among nations, they must have at the heart 
of their nationalism a religion. It must be distinctively a state religion. From it royalty 
must derive its authority, patriotism its inspiration, law its sanction, and the body politic its 
homogeneity. Jeroboam understood this, and he immediately set about counteracting the 
subtle, silent, and powerful influence of the Temple by making it unnecessary for the ten tribes 
of his kingdom to go to Jerusalem to worship. He introduced what may be called a composite 
worship in a mixture of Hebrew and Egyptian symbolisms. He had just returned from Egypt 
where he had been impressed with the idolatry represented in the symbol of the golden calf. 
In the olden time the children of Israel had felt the powerful influence of the same cultus, for, 
when Moses tarried in the mountain and the people in the Wilderness became restless, there 
seemed to be a demand for some visible manifestation of divine presence, for some image or 
symbol of supernatural power. Aaron, to satisfy this unspiritual demand, fashioned the golden 
calf before which the people worshiped as, doubtless, many of them had been taught to do in 
Egypt. Jeroboam, not satisfied, as was Aaron, with one golden calf, made two, not with a 
polytheistic idea that the divine is multiform, but with the political idea that the people must 
be accommodated, and the place of worship must be made as convenient to the tribes as 
possible. Therefore, he set up one golden calf at Dan, in the north, and another at Bethel, in 


THE CURSE OF GOD FOLLOWS IDOLATRY. 


533 


the south. The entire elaborate system of the idolatrous worship of the bull-image was estab¬ 
lished with temples, altars, priests, and sacrifices. Jeroboam was too politic to forsake the 
entire Mosaic system; such a revolution would have shocked the people and would have created 
a reaction in favor of the old faith. He instituted a composite religion by mixing the idolatry 
of the bull-worship with the observances and priestly ministrations of the Hebrew religion. 
The feast of tabernacles was observed at the temple built on the heights of Bethel. The priests 
of this new religious ceremonialism were not recognized as of a special class or order, but were 
chosen from among the people of the lower classes and as they volunteered or offered them¬ 
selves. Jeroboam did not profess to introduce an entirely new religion but to restore the old 
faith of the fathers and the worship of Jehovah, who had delivered them from Egypt and led 
them safely through the Wilderness. He did not claim to introduce new gods, but he repre¬ 
sented the bull-image as the symbol of the true God. His sin lay in his transgression of the 
fundamental law of the theocratic constitution, the representation of God by an image. His sin 
was like that of Aaron, which caused the anger of Moses and the destruction of the golden calf 
in the Wilderness. The people seem to have acquiesced in Jeroboam’s false notion that the 
golden calf was an image and symbol of Jehovah, although Jeroboam was held responsible for 
leading Israel into this sin of idolatry. All through the subsequent history of the kingdom, 
Jeroboam was made to carry the blame for Israel’s departure from the true Jehovah-worship, 
and for her sin of idolatry. On the introduction of the bull-worship and the new method 
of choosing priests, many who had followed the political standard of Jeroboam rebelled and 
returned to the house of David and the temple worship. This false step taken by Jeroboam 
and followed by the people, brought upon Israel the displeasure of God. At the beginning of 
its history as a new and distinct monarchy the prophecy of Israel’s calamities and destruction 
was delivered by Ahijah, the very prophet who had foretold the division of the kingdom of 
David and the elevation of Jeroboam to the throne of Israel. God’s anger was manifest in the 
incident of the altar of Bethel, when Jeroboam’s arm was withered as he raised it against God’s 
prophet and the altar was rent according to the prophet’s word. Although the king’s arm was 
restored by the intercession of the prophet, and the prophet himself was slain by the lion on 
account of his own disobedience, Jeroboam did not learn the lesson which these experiences and 
incidents were designed to teach. Though the curse of God had fallen upon the idolatrous altar 
of Bethel and upon the houses of the high places in the cities of Samaria, the king continued to 
maintain the false worship which he had introduced and which was eventually to destroy the 
house of Jeroboam from off the face of the earth. The religion of Jeroboam was to him a 
political expedient; he supported the idolatry which he had introduced for political reasons. 
He had not, nor had many politicians of that day, accepted the canon which Daniel O’Connell, 
in his day, recognized, that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. A test of 
Jeroboam’s real faith in the conglomerate religion which he had established in Israel came 
when his son, Abijah, fell sick. Then was it that Jeroboam sent his wife not to Bethel, not to 
Dan, not to the high places of the cities of Samaria, but to Shiloh and to the good old prophet 
Ahijah. Trouble tests his false religion and it fails him. He seeks the ministry of the religion 
of his fathers. His idolatry is but an hypocrisy; it may deceive the people, but the king knows 
it is false — a cruel sham and mockery. 

The faithful wife and mother hastens in disguise to Shiloh. Ahijah’s prophetic eye pierces 
the disguise she wears; he knows the woman to be the wife of Jeroboam. He meets her with 
“ heavy tidings.” Not only is the godly child Abijah to die, but the curse of God is to rest 
upon the house of Jeroboam, and the kingdom of Israel is to be uprooted and ended. In the 
fearful threatenings poured forth by the prophet that utter disappearance or annihilation of the 
ten tribes seems to be foretold, which in its realization has been regarded as one of the greatest 
mysteries of history. 


I 


CHAPTER II. 

JUDAH AND HER KINGS. 

A S we turn to trace the fortunes of the house of David from the calamitous division of the 
- kingdom, we look upon as sad a record of religious degeneracy as Israel was making under 
the administration of Jeroboam. Judah turned to an idolatry even more degrading than the 
worship of the golden calf. This had been tolerated even in Solomon’s time and became more 
widespread and deeply rooted under the reign of the weak and almost pusillanimous Rehoboam. 
The house of David had lost national control of the ten tribes of Israel as a punishment from 
God for the foreign alliances made by Solomon, which had introduced these corrupt forms of 
worship, yet neither Judah nor her king seemed disposed to profit by the lesson. The temple 
service was continued, it is true, and Rehoboam never permitted any heathen cultus to supplant 
the state religion. But the various forms of idolatry were tolerated by the State, the people 
supported them and became the devotees of symbols whose meaning it would be most indecent 
to explain. With the introduction of these corrupt and corrupting idolatries came from the 
surrounding nations the most abandoned creatures that debase society, poison the public morals, 
and bring reproach to the national name. If there be proof anywhere it is here, that, though 
“ Righteousness exalteth a nation, sin is a reproach to any people.” Surely forsaking God and 
the spiritual worship of the one Infinite Spirit led these nations into the most degrading sins. 
Their idolatry bore the bitter fruit of the grossest immoralities. The abandonment of the faith 
of their fathers was the surrender of the purity, honor, greatness, and prosperity of their fathers. 
National enervation followed national sin. Rehoboam had been on the throne but five years 
when he was attacked by a foreign power, his armies defeated, his capital taken and his 
kingdom plundered. “ Shishak, the king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem.” 

It is quite reasonable to suppose that Jeroboam, the ambitious and revengeful king of 
Israel, planned this Egyptian foray upon Jerusalem. He had been a voluntary exile in Egypt 
before the partition of the kingdom and had there enjoyed the confidence and hospitality of 
Shishak. He may have incited the Egyptian king to this ambitious enterprise of conquest and 
spoliation, and he doubtless rejoiced in its success. It is just as probable that Shishak found it 
necessary to execute some bold stroke to stay his own tottering power and restore the ancient 
prestige of Egypt by the conquest of the greatest city in the world. He must have seen his 
opportunity just when the nation had been divided, and while only Judah and Benjamin would 
resist him. He could count on the sympathetic neutrality, if not the active cooperation, of the 
ten tribes of Israel. 

Egypt had long been waiting for an opportunity to swallow up this nation which had 
made so great a history in the north. It had been awed by the power of Solomon, who had 
eclipsed in fame her greatest Pharaohs. The glory of Solomon had now passed away, but the 
cupidity of a Shishak was excited by dreams of the untold richness of the Holy City, which had 
never yet been plundered, and of the marvelous value of the gold-embellished temple, which 
had never been despoiled of its sacred and costly treasures. The weakness of the dismembered 
kingdom of Solomon was the tempting opportunity of Egypt. Shishak brought to this 
invasion a formidable army of 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen, besides an innumerable 
host of foot soldiers. The power of Judah was not able to resist this mighty tide of Egyptian 
conquest. The fortified cities fell before the attacks of the invaders and Shishak marched 
in triumph to Jerusalem, where he plundered the temple and the national treasures, and took 


534 









THE TEMPLE PLUNDERED—WAR WITH ISRAEL. 


535 


away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made. These shields and targets, made by 
Rehoboam’s father when Jerusalem was at the height of her prosperity, numbered no less than 
500. Of these, 200 contained 600 shekels of beaten gold and 300 contained three pounds 
of fine gold apiece. The value of these shields has been variously estimated at from $200,000 
to $2,000,000. But when we consider the fabulous richness of the temple, and of the treasure 
which Solomon must have left his son and heir, it would be difficult to overestimate the value 
of the spoils which Shishak secured at Jerusalem. Solomon’s annual importation of gold has 
been estimated all the way from $2,000,000 to $20,000,000. Of this gold he made the shields 
and targets, overlaid his ivory throne, plated the twelve lions that stood by the steps of the 
throne, formed the elaborate drinking cups and royal plate. The treasures of the temple 
consisted of the vessels, altars, tables, candlesticks, lamps, tongs, bowls, snuffers, basins, spoons, 
door hinges, and censers of pure gold, which Solomon made. To these were added the silver 
and gold vessels which David had dedicated. It will be remembered that David prepared for 
the temple 100,000 talents of gold, and 1,000,000 talents of silver. By some writers this gold 
and silver of David’s treasures has been calculated at the enormous value of over four billions 
of dollars. Though this may be an extravagant estimate, and though the invader may have 
spared many a sacred vessel, and may have left much of the beauty of the temple uneffaced, 
still rich with its golden glory, there can be no doubt that Shishak found the treasures of the 
temple and of the royal house of sufficient value to glut his ambition and vastly enrich his own 
depleted treasury. It would seem that the Egyptian’s object was plunder rather than conquest, 
although the offended God had permitted his invasion as a punishment to the house of David 
for its idolatries, and had put a limit to his ambitious depredations on account of Judah’s 
repentance. The record of this invasion by Shishak was preserved not only by the Jews, but 
also by the Egyptians. It was of sufficient historic importance, and its results were of suffi¬ 
cient credit and honor to Shishak and to Egypt, to warrant its preservation in elaborate record 
on the walls of Karnak. There, Egyptology, in this distant age, translates from mysterious 
hieroglyphics the eventful annals of that olden time. 

Perhaps nothing more strikingly shows the rapid decline of Jerusalem from the age of 
Solomon than the fact that Rehoboam, robbed of his treasures, made shields of brass for the 
royal guards to take the place of the golden shields captured by Shishak. It was symbolic of 
the sudden decline from the golden age to the age of brass. 

Rehoboam reigned seventeen years ; Jeroboam of Israel survived him five years. Abijah, 
the son and successor of Rehoboam, however, took up the cause of Judah and the very next 
year after his father’s death prepared to engage in war with the kingdom of Israel. The long- 
smoldering fires of enmity were to break forth. Judah had been greatly humbled and impov¬ 
erished by the Egyptian invasion, but during the ten or twelve succeeding years she had rapidly 
recovered and now Abijah was able to put an army of 400,000 valiant men into the field. 
Jeroboam’s superior strength was immediately manifest by a quick levy of twice as great an 
army as Abijah’s, and 800,000 mighty men of valor were ready for the conflict. It doubtless 
seemed that the numerical superiority of Israel’s forces must be sufficient to daunt the courage, 
quench the ambition, and check the warlike inclinations of Judah. But, nothing daunted, 
Abijah led his forces to the conflict, prefacing the battle with an oration which might have 
been a credit to Demosthenes when hurling his invectives against the Macedonian Philip. He 
claimed to be fighting for the cause of God and the faith of the fathers against a nation which 
had rebelled against both. He went to battle neither fearing the superior strength of his 
enemy nor placing his confidence in Judah’s valor, but crying: “ God himself is with us for 
our captain.” In spite of the strategy of Jeroboam, who surrounded the army of Judah with 
a skillfully planned ambush, Abijah led his valiant men to signal victory and proved, as has 
often been proved in history, the fallacy of the epigram: “God always marches with the 


536 


ACCESSION OF ASA. 


heaviest battalions.” This battle was Jeroboam’s Waterloo. Of the 800,000 mighty men of 
valor who entered the field 500,000 perished — more than the entire army of Judah. Victory 
was with the weaker army because they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers. Jeroboam 
never recovered from this blow, and he survived the terrible defeat but three or four years. 

While Abijah’s project of subduing the rebellious tribes and restoring the unity of the 
divided nations failed, he brought great prestige to the house of David and prepared the way for 
a revival of Judah’s ancient glory. Though Abijah reigned but three years, he displayed a 
remarkable and manifold talent. He was an orator, a statesman, and a general of consummate 
ability. Although he followed his father in sin, he greatly excelled him in genius. While his 
zeal for the faith of the fathers and for the cause of God may have been more patriotic and 
political than spiritual, certain it is that he had the wisdom to see that national idolatry meant 
national ruin, and the violation of the fundamental law of the theocratic constitution was fatal 
to peace and prosperity. Hence, his eloquent, thrilling cry of warning from Mount Zemaraim : 
“ O children of Israel, fight ye not against the Lord God of your fathers; for ye shall not 
prosper.” 

The faithful in Judah, who had not forsaken the worship of Jehovah for the heathen cults 
which had been introduced since the days of Solomon and his alliances with the Pharaohs, may 
have had evil forebodings on the ascendency of Asa to the Davidic throne. He had been 
educated in idolatry by a mother, or queen-mother, who lent her royal patronage to the support 
and propagation of a system of idolatry the most unchaste and degrading imaginable. It 
would not have been unreasonable for the people to expect Asa would yield to the influence of 
Maacah, especially as he came to the throne in youth. Alexander the Great, though resenting 
her political interference, admitted the power of his mother’s tears, and Charles IX. of France 
who sanctioned the St. Bartholomew massacre carried out the cruel behest of his mother, 
Catherine de Medici. What may not young Asa be instigated to do by that idolatrous queen- 
mother, is doubtless an anxious question by many a patriot in Jerusalem. But Asa, more like 
young Edward III. of England, who broke away from Isabella’s intriguing influence and 
deprived her of both her power and her liberty, found it necessary to degrade his queen-mother 
from her royal position and to institute a crusade against the idolatrous abominations which her 
patronage had done so much to encourage and establish. For ten years after Judah’s signal 
victory over Israel tranquility and prosperity came to the house of David. During this era of 
peace Asa prosecuted a relentless warfare against idolatry, uprooting the heathen forms of 
worship and the immoralities attending them, and bringing the people back to the worship of 
Jehovah. This religious reformation was attended by an industrial revival and a regeneration 
of popular patriotism. By the natural laws governing the affairs of men this renewal of 
prosperity and patriotism must ever follow a moral awakening. The idolatries introduced 
among the people led them to sins of drunkenness and licentiousness which not only enervated 
them, but also indisposed them to labor and economy and robbed them of the power and the 
mind to work. When poverty followed idleness and excess, softness and drunkenness, the love 
of country perished — perished with the love of righteousness and the love of toil. But when 
a religious revival brought the people back to the good, old-fashioned habits of temperance, 
honor, and chastity, there followed a new physical life, a new spirit of activity which took to 
honest industry and the creation of new national prosperity. With peace and plenty smiling 
upon a land once more basking in the light of God’s favor, Asa proceeded to put into practice 
the political maxim formulated in later ages: “In time of peace prepare for war.” Asa, 
possessing a talent for statemanship and sovereignty equal to his genius for religious and social 
reform, fortified the cities of his realm. He thereby gave the regenerated spirit of industry an 
opportunity to bring contentment and prosperity to the people. This king, moreover, formed 
an army of nearly 600,000 men. His military foresight was demonstrated at the close of the 



ENTRANCE TO TOMB OF THE KINGS. 





























538 


ETHIOPIAN INVASION REPELLED. 


ten years of peace during which he had given the people work to do in building and fortifying 
his frontier cities. Zerah the Ethiopian, led an army 1,000,000 strong against Judah. This 
Egyptian army was made up of about the same elements that composed the forces of Shishak 
—largely Ethiopian. Zerah had doubtless been inspired with the ambition of conquest by the 
success of his great-grandfather, Shishak the Egyptian, who, years before, had captured Jeru¬ 
salem and carried away great spoil. The Ethiopian, however, found Judah better prepared to 
resist foreign invasion than at any time since the days of Solomon, and he met in Asa a 
military genius such as Shishak did not meet in Rehoboam. Moreover, there had been a great 
religious reformation since the days of Rehoboam, and the people had been inspired with the 
ancient faith in God and now went to battle under Asa as Joshua’s men, and David’s legions, 
and Gideon’s band, and Abijah’s army went to battle — in the name of the Lord of Hosts. 
We now again find the historians using language similar to that which made the old records so 
eloquent—the language that celebrates the providential deliverance of God’s people: “The 
Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah.” As Alexander the Great with less 
than 50,000 men met the Persian host of 1,000,000, and swept them from the plain of Gauga- 
mela like chaff before the wind, so, in the valley of Zepliathali, Asa met the overwhelming 
odds of the Ethiopian host, and drove them before his prayer-strengthened legions, and 
destroyed them as if they had been leaves to a tornado or stubble to the flames. Not content 
with merely resisting the Ethiopian invasion, Asa almost literally carried the war into Africa. 
He invaded the Philistine country and pursued the routed and panic-stricken forces of Zerah 
as they retreated toward Gerar, capturing the cities as he swept along with the mighty swing of 
conquest. With great spoil the victorious army of Judah returned to Jerusalem to be greeted 
with the universal acclaim which voiced the patriotic joy of the people. This battle in the 
glorious valley of Zephathah was the only instance in which the Hebrews ever met and 
defeated the army of a great nation in open field battle, and it must remain an ever-memorable 
event in the annals of the chosen people. 

The monuments of Egypt again seem to give us corroborative evidence of this important 
invasion in the time of Asa. One of the monuments found in the ruins of Bubastis, in Lower 
Egypt, bears the record of an invasion of Asia, including Palestine and Syria, by the great- 
grandson of Shishak I. The time of the invasion comes within the forty-one years of Asa’s 
reign at Jerusalem, and although the Jews gave the invading king of Ethiopia the name of 
Zerah, which was a common name to them and signifying “the rising sun,” the Egyptian 
records indicate that this would-he conqueror, this new, ambitious “ rising sun,” was Usarken I. 
or Usarken II. Champollion, who had not access to this recently discovered record of Bubastis, 
nevertheless argued that Zerah might have been an Egyptian king of an Ethiopian dynasty. 
Other scholars have supposed that Zerah was but the general of an army which had been 
largely recruited in Ethiopia and sent out to invade Syria and Palestine. Asa’s splendid 
victory received the approval of God through his prophet Azariah, who went to meet the king 
and his army as they returned in triumph from the war. The success which God had granted 
his arms inspired Asa with still greater zeal for the extirpation of idolatry and the restoration 
of the true national religion. Idolatry was forbidden, and the worship of Jehovah was enforced 
by the most severe laws. Upon no form of idolatry did Asa vent his iconoclastic indignation 
with greater zeal than upon the indecent system to which his queen-mother was devoted. The 
renewal of the reform which Asa had inaugurated with his elevation to the throne was attended 
and followed by another season of prosperity, while peace once more blessed the land for many 
• happy years. 

When Asa was again called upon to resist a threatened encroachment upon the national 
rights of Judah he had to deal with the regicide Baasha, who had assassinated Nadab, annihi¬ 
lated the entire house of Jeroboam, and usurped the throne of Israel. Baasha conceived the 





BA AS IT A DEFEATED—SUCCESSION OF JEHOSHAPIIAT. 


539 


project of preventing all international trade and communication by building Hamah, a sort of 
frontier guard-station, a fortified eminence overlooking the country north of Jerusalem. This 
ambitious usurper may have had dreams of conquest, and the building of Hamah may have 
been but the first step taken toward an invasion of Judah and the capture of Jerusalem. Be 
this as it may, the self-crowned king of Israel found more than his military equal in Asa, who 
successfully defeated liis peculiar international policy, scattered Ramah as by a cyclone, and 
with the debris rebuilt and fortified Geba and Mizpeh. 

Although Asa was once more successful in his military operations, he offended God and 
contradicted his own record by seeking the assistance of Benhadad of Syria. The zeal of liis 
youth seems to have declined, or liis long reign of peace and prosperity must have had an 
enervating influence upon him, so that he neither had the confidence in his own military 
strength nor the faith in God by which, without any foreign aid, he had met and repulsed the 
Ethiopian invasion. Long and prosperous was this reign of Asa, and, although in the last 
years the king was sorely afflicted with the gout, brought on possibly by high living to which 
the peace and prosperity of the land were the temptations, he had accomplished a great work 
for the cause of true religion and for his country which was recognized by the people in the 
pomp and magnificence of the ceremonies with which he was laid to rest in the City of David. 

The sun of prosperity which had so gloriously risen on Judah did not decline with Asa’s 
death. His son Jelioshaphat proved to be a worthy son of an illustrious father. When 
Edmund Burke listened to William Pitt, the younger, as he entered the British Parliament, he 
exclaimed: “ It is not a chip of the old block, it is the old block itself.” So might one have 
said of Jehoshaphat, the son of Asa. Not only did he display military talent and sagacity 
equal to his father’s, but he also caught the same spirit of progress and reform. Moreover, this 
enlightened king understood the power of books and the influence of the teacher. He inaug¬ 
urated an educational movement by sending teachers of the law through the land to instruct the 
people in justice, patriotism, and religion. He organized a perambulating common school, an 
itinerary college, or a national university extension movement. 

Jehoshaphat saw, as Luther saw centuries after, that a permanent reformation must be 
based on a universal intelligence, and that good government must find its pledge of support and 
perpetuity in enlightened reason and educated public conscience. Luther, it is said, brought 
the schoolmaster into the cottage of Germany. The Reformation brought the schoolhouse into 
the community. When the Pilgrims came to New England, side by side with the forge, the 
church, the home, they planted the common school as early as 1647. The security of this 
American republic and the stability of the British empire have been guaranteed by the 
universal intelligence of a people who have maintained an enlightening and civilizing educa¬ 
tional system. In addition to the educational methods which Jehoshaphat adopted, he rehabili¬ 
tated the judiciary of the country. The courts were purified, and by a very wise civil service 
judges were chosen for their probity and righteousness. By a correct internal economy and 
international policy trade revived and commerce flourished, wealth increased and prosperity, 
both temporal and spiritual, blessed the nation as it had not been favored since the division of 
the original kingdom. This was the bright renaissance of Judah. With its wealth, enlighten¬ 
ment, and progress along all the lines of civilization it reminds us of the later age when 
Lorenzo de Medici was at the head of the Florentine republic, while commerce, art, and letters 
came to such a splendid development that Italy was recognized as the intellectual torch-bearer 
of the nations of awakened Europe. 

The influence of Jehoshaphat’s reign was felt by the surrounding nations, and the Philis- * 
tines and Arabians paid him willing tribute for the moral and intellectual, no less than for the 
commercial, benefits which they acknowledged had come to them by his liberal and enlightened 
administration. 


540 


ALLIANCE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 


For the first time since the dismemberment, attempts were now made to establish amicable 
relations between the two great divisions of the kingdom. Jehoshaphat and Ahab formed an 
alliance and the king of Judah went on a visit to the king of Israel in Samaria, where he was 
received most royally and entertained with the hospitality befitting his high station and his 
universal renown. Some such magnificence may have characterized the meeting of these kings 
in the bright noonday of their prosperity as story relates of the meeting of Henry VIII. of 
England and Francis I. of France on the field of the cloth of gold, when kings vied with each 
other in the generosity of their courtesies and in the lavish display of their riches and honors. 
It was doubtless with the most worthy motive of strengthening the good feeling between the two 
nations and with a view to their future peace and reciprocity that Jehoshaphat consented to join 
Ahab in the vain and fatal attempt to take Rarnoth Gilead from the Syrians. Still later, and 
in the same spirit of good will to Israel, Jehoshaphat yielded to the entreaty of Jehoram, king 
of Israel, and assisted him in his attempt to subdue the rebellion of Moab. In this patriotic 
effort to suppress rebellion the prophet Elisha gave the kings assurance of success. This assur¬ 
ance, however, was given for the sake of Jehoshaphat rather than of Jehoram, for, although 
Elisha was a prophet of Israel, not of Judah, he was inimical to Jehoram’s idolatrous policy 
and in hearty sympathy with the reformatory spirit and policy of Jehoshaphat. It was doubt¬ 
less the assistance of the king of Judah that would enable Israel to hold Moab, for in this 
support the help of Elisha and of Elisha’s God would be secured. Jehoram had driven Mesha, 
the king of Moab, to his fortified capital, Kir-haraseth, but was unable to prosecute a successful 
siege without the aid of the king of Edom and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. Even then the 
allied armies were threatened with defeat by the drought until Elisha prophesied a providential 
deliverance by a miraculous supply of water in the ditches for the famishing men and beasts. 
The morning saw the fulfillment of Elisha’s prophecy in abundance of water flowing through 
the ditches from the direction of Edom. Here was wrought a twofold deliverance: the water 
supply saved the allied armies from perishing and the appearance of the water deceived the 
rebels into making a fatal blunder. As the sun rose and shone upon the water in the ditches it 
gave it the appearance of blood, and Mesha supposed it meant that the allied kings had gone to 
battle among themselves and this blood was flowing from the field of carnage. Thus deceived, 
he ordered not an attack of arms but a rush for the spoil. The Moabites in a great mob, 
without order or discipline, threw themselves upon the allied forces only to be annihilated. 
Mesha, determined to escape from his capital, rallied a little band of only 700 desperate 
followers and, with drawn swords, made a gallant dash for liberty, but they were hurled back 
by the king of Edom. Then in desperation the defeated king, to the astonishment and horror 
of his victorious enemies, offered his own son and royal heir as a burnt offering on the wall of 
Kir-haraseth. It was enough to fill the allies of Israel with indignation. The forces of Judah 
and Edom turned and left the field, forcing Jehoram to raise the siege and give up the attempt 
to suppress a rebellion, which, after all, seemed quite justifiable. Was the withdrawal of Judah 
equivalent to the withdrawal of God’s favor and the revocation of Elisha’s prophecy of success? 
Moab had been oppressed by the exorbitant taxation of Israel and doubtless had a just cause in 
striking for independence. Those simple shepherds of Moab had paid to Israel a bankrupting 
tribute of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 sheep with the wool, and they could stand it no longer; 
hence their attempted independence. 

Archaeology again becomes the handmaid of history in the discovery of the Moabite stone 
on which is preserved the record of this conflict between Moab and Israel. For nearly 2,800 
years this stone, inscribed with characters similar to those in which David and Solomon wrote, 
has stood as a monument of Moab’s successful rebellion. To this distant time it becomes, even 
in its fragments, an unimpeachable witness to the veracity of the Hebrew Scriptures. This 
priceless relic of antiquity was discovered at Dhiban in the land of Moab in 1868; it had been 





A FACSIMILE OF A PLASTER CAST OF THE MOABITE STONE IN THE LIBRARY OF 

CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 








542 


THE MOABITE STONE—JUDAH INVADED. 


known to the Arabs, doubtless, from time immemorial and was made known to a German 
missionary, Rev. F. A. Klein, by an Arab sheik. When found, the stone, four feet long and 
two feet wide, containing about 1,000 words, in thirty-four lines, was in a remarkably fine state 
of preservation. But when the French and Prussian consuls entered into a rivalry to negotiate 
for the purchase of the monument and thereby excited the cupidity of the Arabs and Turks, 
the Arabs, in revenge for the interference of the governor of the region, heated the stone with 
fire and then threw water upon it which caused it to burst into pieces. These pieces, however, 
were collected by French and English travelers and explorers, and, finally, at the suggestion of 
Dean Stanley, the English turned the fragments in their possession over to the French. Now, 
in the Louvre, the stone of cemented fragments is preserved. Fortunately, a squeeze of the 
stone had been taken before it was broken, and thus the record in its unmutilated perfection 
was secured. This stone, bearing its inscription in Phoenician characters, written before 
Homer’s time, records the deeds of Mesha, king of Moab, the oppression of Israel and the 
rebellion of Moab against that oppression. It preserves the names of cities mentioned in the 
Book of Numbers and which existed 1500 B. C. and were still flourishing 900 B. C., but have 
since disappeared. It is, moreover, in remarkable geographical harmony with the Scriptures 
of the Hebrews. While this stone mentions names of kings and of peoples found in the Bible, 
it also preserves a record of the vastly important fact that the worship of Jehovah dates back 
of 900 B. C. and was well known by the surrounding nations to be the religion of Israel. 

Archaeology has also apparently discovered the site of Kir-haraseth, the capital city of 
Mesha, which was besieged by the combined armies of Israel, Edom, and Judah, and on whose 
walls the king offered his son as a burnt offering. The difficulties which Jehoram and Jehosh- 
apliat encountered in their vain attempt to put down the rebellion of Moab are accounted for 
in the very situation of Kir-haraseth. It is an inland Gibraltar; a natural fortress, almost 
inaccessible. Hence, while the invading army was able to “beat down the cities” as they 
drove the Moabites before them, and on every good piece of land cast every man a stone and 
filled it, when they came to the capital, to which Mesha retired, it is said: “ in Kir-haraseth left 
they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it.” The discovery of 
this city throws confirmatory light upon the history of Israel’s attempt to subdue the Moabite 
rebellion. 

As those Moabites felt justified in their rebellion against Israel for levying upon them a 
crushing tax or tribute, after the destructive but ineffectual attempt which had been made to 
bring them to submission, they seem to have harbored a feeling of resentment against Jehosha¬ 
phat for interfering and assisting Jehoram. The memory of the unjust interference rankled 
in their hearts until they planned in revenge an invasion of Judah, with an allied army of 
Moabites, Edomites, and Ammonites. The news of the approach of this vast army filled 
Jehoshaphat with consternation and, though he could have put an army of 1,000,000 valiant 
men into the field under command of his five experienced generals, he proclaimed a fast instead 
and went to prayer. All Judah stood before the Lord. The remarkable prophecy comes that 
they shall not need to fight but simply to stand still and see the salvation of the Lord. Little 
did they realize what the next morning would reveal to them. Jehoshaphat gave a most 
remarkable order. He appointed not archers, not slingers, not great generals, but singers! 
He then commanded them to lead on the hosts of Judah with the voice of praise, singing, not of 
bravery, nor of country, nor of war, but singing of the beauty of holiness and of the mercy of 
the Lord. It calls to mind the event of our own times when the German legions in the late 
Fran co-Prussian war rushed into battle singing Luther’s well-known hymn: 

“Ein’ Feste Burg ist Unser Gott,” 

or of Cromwell’s Ironsides at Naseby and Marston Moor marching to the conflict singing the 
Psalms. But, unlike the German legions or the Puritan Ironsides, the army of Judah had not 


CIVIL DISCORD IN ISRAEL. 


543 


to strike a blow. As they advanced toward Engedi and came near to the watchtower in the 
wilderness they were startled by the awful spectacle which greeted them. The battle had been 
fought. The field was strewn with the slain. The invading army was completely annihilated. 
When the hosts of Judah began to sing, the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites, ag ainst whom 
the Lord had set ambushments, began to slay one another, and the carnage continued among 
themselves until all were slain or had fled. This remarkable event filled the surrounding 
nations with awe, inspired them with a wholesome reverence for Jehoshaphat and the house of 
David, and ushered in a new era of peace, prosperity, and happiness, such as had not been 
known for seventy-five years. 


CHAPTER III. 


THE APOSTASY OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL. 


TT OW has it fared with the ten tribes of Israel since Jeroboam’s death ? The spirit of rebel- 
-L-L lion which had created the revolt against the house of David became a menace to the 
stability of the new kingdom as soon as its founder passed away. We see in the history of 
Israel a parallel of Imperial Rome after it had begun its decline. Idolatry is attended with 
social degeneracy, licentiousness, drunkenness, intrigue, assassination, and even suicide in high 
places. Nadab, the son of Jeroboam, reigns but two years when rebellion breaks out and he is 
assassinated by Baasha, the general-in-chief of his army. After this regicide usurps the throne 
he exterminates the house of Jeroboam. So speedily is the prophecy of Abijah fulfilled and 
Jeroboam’s dynasty ended. 

Baasha was succeeded by his son Elah who, like Nadab, reigned but two years when a 
conspiracy was hatched against him and, while he was drinking himself drunk, Zimri, the 
captain of his chariots, assassinated him and usurped the throne. Zimri exterminated the house 
of Baasha. Thus did history repeat itself and the house of Baasha was destroyed as Baasha 
had himself destroyed the house of Jeroboam. This extinction of the house of Baasha was 
foretold by the prophet Jehu. Zimri reigned but seven days. He was declared a conspirator 
and usurper. Omri was elected king by the soldiers and immediately marched against and 
captured the city of Tirzah. Zimri, losing heart and seeing the fortunes of the day turn against 
him, set fire to the royal palace and miserably perished in the conflagration. A conflict now 
arose, evidently between the civilians and the soldiery, as to who should assume the crown. 
The people were divided between Tibni and Omri. Civil war ensued and there was danger of 
the kingdom of Israel breaking to pieces. The very spirit that created the division between the 
ten tribes and the house of David threatened now to disrupt the new monarchy. It had been 
with the greatest difficulty that this people maintained their unity. Their kings had found it 
necessary to tax their ingenuity to the utmost to prevent a reunion with Judah. They had to 
invent a religion, build temples to rival Solomon’s, attempt to construct fortified cities between 
the two nations to guard against the intercommunication of the people, and, with all this, it 
demanded the best genius of their rulers to preserve internal peace and secure a homogeneous 
body politic. Several times in this sad history Israel seemed on the very brink of national 
disintegration, if not of vicious and brutal anarchy. 

It happened here, as it often happened later on in Rome, that the civilians and soldiery 
were in political conflict. The most cruel and destructive results came from these clashings of 
civil and military interests. As between Omri and Tibni it was an unequal contest. The 
soldiery usually won the day at Rome. The soldiery won the day in Israel. Tibni and his 



544 


SPREAD OF IDOLATRY IN ISRAEL. 


civilians, at best but a volunteer army of raw recruits, unusued to arms, were not able to stand 
against Omri and his well-armed, disciplined men of war; therefore, the quaint old record very 
significantly says: “ So Tibni died, and Omri reigned.” How dark, cruel, and terrible is this 
history of Israel! How vividly it calls up the later history of the Roman emperors, a race of 
imperial sots and assassins! Caligula reigned less than four years and was murdered in a 
conspiracy. Claudius reigned twelve years and was poisoned. Nero committed suicide after a 
reign of fourteen years. Galba was assassinated seven months after he assumed the purple. 
Otho committed suicide at the end of three months. Yitellius was executed after reigning eight 
months. Domitian ruled fifteen years, but was then assassinated. Commodus was strangled to 
death in his bed at the end of a twelve years’ reign. Pertinax was beheaded ere he had been 
emperor three months. Then the throne was offered to the highest bidder at auction. The 
successful purchaser, Didius Julianus, lost his head at the expiration of two months. Surely 
these two pictures, though separated by a thousand years, resemble each other in their dark, 
cruel, and bloody aspects and show with what struggles and agonizings humanity has found its 
way to social enlightenment, to just government, and to universal brotherhood. 

We have found the name of Omri on the Moabite stone, cut thereon 900 B. C. He was 
the soldiers’ king and came to the throne by the twofold power of the ballot and the sword. 
His reign was characteristically military. He saw with a soldier’s eye that Tirzah was not the 
best location that could be chosen for the capital of the empire. David had displayed true 
military wisdom in planting the capital of the United Kingdom at Jerusalem. Omri, with 
equal sagacity, saw the military advantage of the hill of Samaria, purchased it, and there built 
the city to which he transferred the seat of government. With a taste for war rather than for 
the higher and more refined arts of peace, Omri permitted the nation to sink deeper and deeper 
into the abominations of idolatry, and, as though the wickednesses which he tolerated were too 
gross to be put upon record, the historians seem to pass by his reign of twelve years with 
averted faces, content with declaring him to be the most dissolute and heathenish king that had 
as yet disgraced the throne of Israel. The nation plunges swiftly to its fall. The apostasy 
comes to its climax of impiety and reaps its most vicious harvest in the reign of Ahab. This 
degenerate son of a degenerate father seems inspired to out-Nero Nero and make the sins of 
his predecessors insignificant as compared with his own enormities. He marries Jezebel, 
a Zidonian, and introduces Baal worship as the national religion and associates with it the 
worship of Astarte, the Assyrian Venus, with the groves, the high places, and the Baal temple 
with its altar and ceremonialism. The worship of Jehovah becomes a thing of the past, and 
with that pure, spiritual worship have vanished the sturdy righteousness, the chastity and honor 
which in the days of old made men proud to boast that they were Israelites. 

Virtue, however, had not utterly disappeared except from high places. Now and then a 
brave, great soul appears like a star breaking through the universal cloud, or a comet shooting, 
bright and glorious, athwart the impenetrable gloom. The people, however, do not long remain 
wiser and purer than their leaders. Can a Pericles, a Nero, a Lorenzo de Medici, a Louis XIV. 
become licentious without corrupting the social body ? Do not the Athenians ape their leader ? 
Do not the Romans, high and low, plunge into Claudian vices ? Do not the Florentines, from 
the workshop to the convent and from the kitchen to the nunnery, catch the infection of 
Medicean worldliness ? Do not the Parisians in all ranks of society take their cue of immor¬ 
ality from the reigning Bourbon ? And do not the Israelites look to Ahab and Jezebel for 
instruction in unrighteousness? Wickedness had strengthened itself in the alliance of an Ahab 
and a Jezebel. Society’s tendency to corruption increases tenfold when a corrupt and vicious 
woman becomes the power behind the throne. The immoral influence of Aspasia upon Pericles 
and Athens has been looked upon as more subversive of the social integrity and the national 
honor, even in the Golden Age of Grecian culture, than the calamity and demoralization of 


SOCIAL AND NATIONAL DETERIORATION. 


545 


political intrigues and of war. The Roman republic fell, not before the ambition of a Julius 
Csesar, but before the shameless profligacy which had become fashionable through the influence 
of Marc Antony, who had been bewitched by the voluptuousness of a Cleopatra. The 
Claudian orgies which set the fashion for social Rome of imperial times were the invention not 
only of the bestial Csesar but also of his almost inhuman consorts, Messalina and Agrippina. 
Louis XIY. was not alone responsible for the fact that during his reign in Parisian society 
“ the ten commandments were at a pretty pass.” There were such profligate powers behind the 
throne and surrounding it as Montespan and her associates. 

The Zidonian Jezebel was the power behind the throne of Israel — the idolatrous, licen¬ 
tious, wicked power. All society was poisoned and corrupted by her influence. “ If the blind 
lead the blind, both fall into the ditch.” There is not only a ditch, but a yawning, bottomless 
gulf of chaos and destruction opening before that God-forgetting, Baal-worshiping nation, and 
they are blindly, madly rushing into the chasm, following the fashion in vice set them by 
Ahab and Jezebel. 



THE PROPHET ELIJAH. 









CHAPTER IV. 

ELIJAH THE TISHBITE. 


N OW is the time for the appearance of a great man. He is the offspring of a common and 
imperative need. He is rocked in the cradle of national peril and nursed at the bosom of 
angered righteousness. A great reformer is the child of an important, critical, transitional 
epoch. He is a Noah when the floods threaten universal devastation. He is a Joseph when 
the famine stalks abroad. He is a Moses when oppression crushes and the time is ripe for a 
mighty exodus. He is a Daniel when the conqueror’s yoke becomes heavy. He is a John the 
Baptist, to preach repentance and herald a new kingdom. He is an Alfred or a Charlemagne 
when empires must be lifted from the shifting sands and planted on new and sure foundations. 
He is a Savonarola to rebuke the worldiness of the age, and save the letters, arts, and manners 
from corruption. He is a Wycliffe, a Huss, a Luther of protest when ecclesiastical tyranny is 
riveting shackles on human conscience and reason. What an age was this! Truth bound to 
the stake; Religion on her face and weeping in the dust; Morality a laughing stock; Virtue 
an outcast; Error wielding the scepter; Unbelief wearing the crown; Vice victorious; Crime, 
conqueror; the gulf yawning; the times drunk with idolatry and licentiousness; the nation 
doomed. It is the time for the appearance of a great reformer. And he comes. He appears 
suddenly as if he had just stepped from a chariot of fire, let down out of heaven. Suddenly, 
as a thunderbolt, he leaps into the presence of the king. A strange man with an eye to make 
kings quail; heavy brows; long, thick hair flowing over his back like a lion’s mane; a girdle 
of leather about his loins; a mantle of sheep skin thrown across his brawny shoulders; a voice 
that has learned its elocution from the thunder—“Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhab¬ 
itants of Gilead.” This is the first appearance of this remarkable man, who looks as if he has 
power in him and a purpose. He utters but one sentence : “ As the Lord God of Israel liveth, 
before whom I stand, there shall not be dew or rain these years, but according to my word,” 
and he is gone. One blinding flash of lightning, and Ahab is left alone there, trembling like 
Belshazzar, later on, when he saw the writing of his doom on the palace wall. 

Elijah was no diplomat of the Talleyrand school; no oily policy characterized his methods. 
His words had a “ siss ” to them, like hot bullets; his manner was quick and blunt, like a 
cannon’s. He had the courage to bring an unwelcome message, to hurl a bombshell of rebuke 
right into the royal palace and into the midst of the idolatrous foolery of the times. He put 
all he had to say on that first occasion into one sentence. They sometimes get a great deal 
of danger into one torpedo. Ahab must have thought so when that sentence struck his 
conscience: “ As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew or 
rain these years, but according to my word.” 

Like John the Baptist, this Elijah was an ascetic, a recluse, a stern, uncompromising man, 
full of moral iron, and powder, and electricity; sent into the world evidently to explode: to 
blow things up and to turn the world upside down. There must have been some such conster¬ 
nation in the City of Samaria as Savonarola created in Florence, when, with his thunder-toned 
eloquence, he predicted famine, pestilence, and war, as the punishment of God upon the worldly 
city and its sinful people ! An English statesman said at the close of his career: “Were I to 
begin life again, it would be as an. agitator.” Elijah began his life as an agitator and was a 
reformer from the first day he unsealed his volcanic lips in holy rebuke and retributive 
prophecy. 


516 


THE SUBLIME SOLITUDE OF ELIJAH. 


547 


Here is an incarnation of the grand conviction, “ the Lord, he is God.” He is set against 
the degrading idolatry of his time. The worship of Baal was an offense that stirred his heart 
to fiery indignation. It was not enough that he should utter solemn warnings; he must 
prophesy calamities and judgments. The very clouds obey him, as the sun and moon of old 
were obedient to the command of Joshua. He is in league with the God who rules the heavens, 
whose power can turn a garden to a desert waste or transform a barren land to fruitfulness. 
God has spoken through men only to be unheeded; now he will speak through nature in 
answer to his servant’s prayers. The rain and the dew are withheld from the pastures and 
vineyards of Israel; the lilies wither in the valley and the roses fade on Sharon’s fertile plain ; 
the vine droops fruitless on the sunny slopes of Carmel and the pools become stagnant and dry 
before the panting flocks, while drought, famine, and death stalk through the land. During 
the drought God takes care of his prophet; he has still other work for him to do. “ I will 
command the ravens to feed thee,” is his promise. The miracle by which the barrel of meal 
and cruse of oil of the widow of Zarephath failed not during the long famine, and the still 
more wonderful miracle by which the widow’s dead son was restored to life were but incidental. 
Elijah did not come to perform miracles, as the Christ did not; these were incidental to their 
ministries and confirmatory of their divine authority. Elijah, by the display of this miracu¬ 
lous power, became sufficiently accredited as a prophet of Jehovah. Not only the widow of 
Zarephath, but every man and woman in Israel, even unto Ahab and Jezebel, should by this 
manifestation of power be able and willing to say: “ Now, by this I know that thou art a man 
of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth.” This Elijah is to speak again. 
A second time he faces the king to denounce his idolatry, to show the hollowness of the Baal- 
worship and to demonstrate the genuineness of the Jehovah religion. There is a serious 
misunderstanding between the prophet and the king. Ahab indignantly charges Elijah, the 
prophet, with the trouble into which the nation has been plunged, too blind to see that these 
woes are the result of his own wickedness. He has been sowing to the wind and is now reaping 
the whirlwind. Jezebel has helped to sow for this harvest of calamities. She has introduced 
indecent idolatries, brought the priests of Ashtoreth to her own table, killed the prophets of 
God, and instigated the destruction of the altars of the divine religion. But Elijah had been 
felt. From Bethel to Dan and from the royal palace to the humblest shepherd’s cot, that name 
“ Elijah ” had become a terror in the land. There was a spirit of inquiry abroad; calamity 
had set the people to thinking, questioning, reasoning, and there seemed to be a growing dispo¬ 
sition to discuss the philosophy of their serious national condition. This was a good sign. 
Undoubtedly Elijah understood the temper of the people when he issued a challenge to the 
whole nation to come and discuss the situation. Ahab was enough of a politician to see that in 
accepting the prophet’s challenge he was but voicing the sentiment of the restless, suffering, 
discontented public. Elijah throws down the gauntlet to all the priests of Baal and to all the 
priests of Jezebel’s abominable and indecent idolatry. The great question shall be decided in 
the presence of all the people. No closed doors; no tickets of special invitation — except to 
the priests of Baal, and they come 450 strong. The cunning prophets of the groves remain 
away. But all the nation come; no tent can hold them; no temple is large enough to give 
them standing room; they swarm up the dry slopes of Carmel, pouring in from all the land. 
It is a strange multitude, wan and hunger-pinched. Their flocks are perishing ; their land has 
yielded no harvest; their horses, mules, and beasts of burden, all are dying. A commission 
has been sent forth to gather forage, but all in vain. Carmel is yellow; the plains are parched 
and the valleys are streamless with the drought. The people come by hundreds and by thou¬ 
sands, anxious to see and hear this prophet who foretold their calamities, and whose word kept 
the heavens closed against their flocks and fields. And now, only one man stands up against 
the world to defend the truth, to prove the divinity of Jehovah-worship, to confound the 



548 


ELIJAH AND THE PRIESTS OF BAAL. 


champions of infidelity and to overwhelm the powers of a demoralizing, nation-ruining idolatry. 
The learning of the land is against him; the wealth of the land is against him; the political 
power of the land is against him ; and the people of the land are against him. 

“There stood one faith against the whole world’s unbelief.” 

It is one of the most dramatic scenes of human history, with the mountain for the stage, 
Elijah and the priests of Baal for the actors, and a whole nation as awe-struck spectators. The 
prophet, with a magnificent faith and courage, thunders forth the startling proposition: “ The 
God that answereth by fire, let him he God.” At last the people speak; their pent-up feeling 
breaks all the barriers of restraint; they have been conquered by the majestic confidence of the 
prophet, and with excitement they cry in response to the fair, logical, eloquent proposition: 
“It is well spoken.” 

In that far-off time there was to be a demonstration of Abraham Lincoln’s homely axiom, 
“You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but 
you can’t fool all the people all the time.” The people had been fooled long enough. They 
now demanded that something be proven and settled. Halting between two opinions must cease. 
The challenge is accepted, the altars are prepared with their sacrifices. The priests of Baal have 
the first argument — they lead the debate. They cry to Baal for a demonstration of his power; 
they cry and slash themselves with knives and in frenzy leap upon the altars. From morn till 
noon and from noon till night they make a spectacle of themselves before the assembled nation. 
In the midst of their cries of frenzy, a loud, almost hilarious voice is heard above the din. 
Elijah mocks them. For once his grim countenance relaxes; his sides shake with the laughter 
of triumphant ridicule, and he fairly roars out: “ Cry aloud; for he is a god; either he is 
talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be 
awaked.” One of the few witicisms of sacred record, but a masterpiece of sarcasm and a telling 
argument. The people must have felt its overwhelming logic. Raving, panting, cursing, 
bleeding, and despairing, the priests of Baal desist in very exhaustion. No fire has come from 
heaven. Breathless, the weary, wan, and long-wronged people wait on the mountain as the 
shades of evening gather over the land. It is the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, a 
ceremony of hallowed, historic associations, recalling blessed memories of the olden time. Do 
not the spirits of the fathers hover about the mount ? Does not the very air palpitate with the 
agitated feelings of the people ? Do not 10,000 sad, penitent hearts pour their faith and longing 
into Elijah’s prayer as he stands by the altar and lifts his voice to the Lord God of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Israel ? There shall be no frenzy, no cursing, no slashing with knives, no leaping 
upon the altar, no waiting long and weary hours. A calm, majestic prayer, lifting poor Israel 
up to God, and all the mount is lighted up with the glory of celestial fire. The altar, with its 
sacrifice, has been consumed. One mighty shout that makes old Carmel tremble, then all is still 
and dark. The people are on their faces, and — “the Lord, he is the God ; the Lord, he is the 
God!” The pretensions of idolatry have exploded, the teachers of error have been confounded 
and slain. Baalism is, for the time, shattered and the people have at last come to their senses. 

Three long, weary years have passed since Elijah predicted the drought. All this time the 
prophet has been a hunted man. Once more he is called to deliver a divine message to the 

people. On this occasion he carries a very different prophecy — he is to make the joyful and 

welcome announcement of the coming of rain. Good news to the thirsty land! On this happy 

mission was he bound when he met the king and invited the nation to the controversy on 

Carmel. The people have acknowledged Jehovah with one universal shout, and now the 
prophet’s voice is heard, thrilling as a trumpet’s peal, “ there is a sound of abundance of rain.” 
Not a cloud in the sky, nor had there been for three years; not the faintest sound of the most 
distant thunder! Ahab could not hear the sound; the poor, famishing people could not hear 


MS TRIUMPH AND FLIGHT. 


549 


the sound ; the perishing flocks could not hear the sound, but Elijah heard the sound of abun¬ 
dance of rain. Ahab went to eating, but Elijah went to prayer. Doubtless Ahab would rather 
eat than pray, but Elijah would rather pray than eat. It was the praying that brought the 
rain. Napoleon once said, “ Stomach rules the world.” Ahab, doubtless, believed it long 
before. But Elijah was proving that conscience, faith, and prayer had a place in the world’s 
government and in the shaping of its destiny. The man of prayer is the man of power. Ahab 
was the typical man of appetite; Elijah, the typical man of prayer. How differently they 
seem impressed with the demands of the hour! Nero fiddling over burning Rome is not more 
detestable than Ahab feasting, when he, too, should have been praying for his people and his 
country. In the darkest day at Valley Forge, Washington is found kneeling in the snow of 
the forest absorbed in prayer, and in the gloomiest hour of the American civil war, Abraham 
Lincoln is found in his room at the White House on his knees before God. The men who 
stand nearest God, stand nearest the people and the country, and prayer may succeed after 
powder and plow have failed. The fire has leaped from heaven in vindication of the truth, and 
the champion of the truth. The people are on their faces in repentance, and the prophet of 
Jehovah is on his knees yonder on Carmel’s height commanding the clouds to empty their 
treasures into the valleys and the kindly heavens to bathe the thirsty hills with dews. The 
order was sent to Ahab to hasten down the mount as fast as his chariots could bear him before 
the rain should stop him. Then Ahab and Elijah started for Jezreel. Ahab in his chariot, 
Elijah afoot; the eating man riding, the praying man running. There is no evidence that 
Ahab invited the weary but triumphant prophet up into his chariot, as the Ethiopian eunuch 
long after had the good breeding to do to Phillip. But the prophet kept ahead of the chariot 
for sixteen miles to the entrance of Jezreel. 

It might now be supposed that Elijah would be the most popular man in Israel, greeted by 
the hosannas of the people and honored by royalty. Have not the rains descended like music 
on the parched fields? Have not the dews fallen in holy benediction? Springs leap out of 
the old rocks, and brooks swell and flow singing down the valleys. In happy prospect the 
children gather the lilies again and Sharon is all ablush with roses; Carmel’s slopes are green 
with thrifty vines and the cattle on a thousand hills grow sleek and fat; gaunt famine has 
vanished and sweet prosperity goes laughing and dancing through the land. But Jezebel has 
sworn an oath. Maddened at the recital of the prophet’s triumph on Carmel, enraged at the 
slaughter of the priests of Baal, this royal tigress sends hissing through her teeth a desperate 
vow, to kill Elijah. For once in his life the brave old prophet turned and fled. The famine 
could not frighten him ; the storms of the mountains never made him quail; the king could 
not disconcert him; 450 wild, howling priests of Baal never made him tremble, but when 
Jezebel spoke her mind, “he arose, and went for his life.” He left Jezreel at as quick a pace 
as he entered when he beat the chariot of Ahab; he was now straining every muscle to 
distance the chariot of Jezebel. He flees to the wilderness, and in the solitude beneath the 
juniper tree for once seems to lose his self-poise, his superb, all-mastering confidence. He had 
been an independent, fearless, self-sufficient man, standing against the fashionable tendency and 
drift of the times; but now, where he was strong he becomes weak and uncertain. The strain 
has been too much even for his rugged moral constitution and he is ready to give up and die. 
In his zeal and in the flush of success he imagined he was doing it all, that no one else was 
taking any important part in the reformation, and it was most discouraging. Again, even 
the strongest, most independent men who are aiming to advance the public weal like to be 
appreciated. But, if, after a faithful, heroic battling against evil and a successful work of good 
done for the people, one is not appreciated and hears no words of commendation and sympathy, 
but becomes the target of abuse and the victim of a revengeful fanaticism, he will be apt to lose 
his courage and his public-spirited ambition. 


550 


ELIJAH COMMUNES WITH GOD. 


While Elijah, as a refugee, is seeking safety in the solitude of the wilderness, God still 
keeps him. While Jezebel is hunting him, angels are ministering unto him. Ordered to 
Horeb he finds a cave and lodges there. Strange place for so large a man! Trying to get 
away from Jezebel and the world; trying, also, to escape from conscience and from the 
Guardian Angel, from duty and from God, like the philosopher, Hobbes, he would, if it were 
possible, find a hole to crawl into out of the world. He is suffering the temptations of discour¬ 
agement. What small places discouraged men do sometimes creep into! “What doest thou 
here, Elijah?” It is the voice of God or conscience. Your place is not in the cave, but on 
the mountain. And there he stands once more—on the heights. A tempest sweeps in fury 
down, the rocks are riven by the thunderbolt, but Elijah heeds it not. An earthquake follows 
the storm, and Horeb reels and staggers, but Elijah seems all unmindful of the awful and 
sublime spectacle. Then fire leaps out of the sky and flames up from the bowels of the 
mountain as though it were an iEtna or Vesuvius, but Elijah stands unmoved. After the 
thunders are hushed and the mountain has ceased to rock with earthquake convulsions, and the 
fires have subsided, there comes “ a still small voice.” The prophet starts from his reverie, 
hides his face in his mantle and hurries toward the cave. A voice, the “still small voice,” 
arrests him, and he realizes he is with God in that awful solitude. He there bitterly complains 
of the corruption of the times and the universal apostasy, claims to be alone in the work of 
reform, and that he is living in constant peril of his life. Then he learns a great and whole¬ 
some lesson, for he is given the assurance that he is not the only living man who is in sympathy 
with the reform movement. The silent prayers of 7,000 in Israel were daily going up to God, 
and in the scenes which he had witnessed on Horeb the lesson was taught him that in those 
prayers there was more power than in all the fierce and awful demonstrations of Carmel, or 
in the outward pomp and ceremony of religious formalism, or even in the afflicting providences 
that had visited the land. Elijah was not alone. No other man came forth to champion the 
cause of God before the people; no other lifted his voice in stern denunciation and warning; 
no other called down fire from heaven; no other challenged the apostate nation to the test on 
Carmel; but many were still praying to God who did not bow the knee to Baal, and in those 
prayers there was a silent power of which the hot-souled, impetuous man of action was ignorant. 

Elijah went from Horeb a braver, stronger soul than ever. He found in Elisha a sympa¬ 
thetic fellow-reformer and with him toiled, like Luther with Melanchthon in a later age, for 
the suppression of vice and unbelief, the overthrow of superstition, and the enlightenment of 
his country. Undoubtedly the work of the reformers had created a reaction against idolatry 
and in favor of Jehovah-worship which resulted in new displays of God’s favor and protecting 
providence. The successful resistance of the Syrian invasion led by Benhadad was a proof of 
God’s favor, since Ahab’s triumph had been prophesied. Ahab himself, however, proved a 
most cowardly, unpatriotic, and pusillanimous general and king in the whole affair. He offered 
to surrender at the first demand of Benhadad, but the more patriotic senators and people would 
not have it so. The attack on Samaria was repulsed, the Syrians fled before the young princes 
of Israel, and Benhadad, reeling from his tent too drunk to give a sensible command, struggled 
into his saddle and with drunken frenzy escaped for his life. In the second invasion at the 
return of the year, Benhadad was repulsed and 100,000 Syrian infantry were slain in a day. 
Ahab displayed very inferior military genius and demonstrated his lack of loyalty in the condi¬ 
tions of surrender which he accepted from Benhadad, and by the unholy alliance into which he 
entered with the Syrians. But the basest wickedness of Ahab and Jezebel manifested itself in 
the robbery and murder of a private citizen whose thrifty vineyard bordered on the royal 
domain in sight of the palace at Samaria. The murder of Banquo and of Duncan, king of 
Scotland, by the ambitious Macbeth, and the assassination of Henry VI. and Edward V., insti¬ 
gated by Bichard III. of England, were royal in character as compared with the conspiracy 



CP 

CP 

M 

O 

X 

H 

5 ?; 

X 

o 

S 
























552 


DEATH OF A HAD—THE SUCCESSION. 


which Jezebel instigated against Naboth, resulting in his death and the confiscation of his vine¬ 
yard. Aliab had proposed that Naboth commit a crime against his own heirs and against the 
law of the land by trading him the vineyards which he had inherited, and which by the law of 
tribal inheritance could not be sold or given away. Unable to secure the vineyard by this 
illegal method proposed, the king was in great distress of mind until Jezebel took it upon 
herself to secure the coveted prize by a conspiracy which ended in the murder of Naboth. 

So atrocious was this crime, committed against an humble citizen by royalty itself, that 
Elijah was once more roused to a fearful pitch of holy indignation and met the king with a 
scathing rebuke for his crime of murder and robbery, and prophesied to his face his violent 
death and the utter extinction of his royal house. Soon after this, Ahab sought the aid of 
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, in an ambitious design to capture Ramoth Gilead from the king of 
Syria. Even in this enterprise the mean and villainous character of Ahab manifested itself on 
the field of battle. Evidently he had premeditated the sacrifice of Jehoshaphat, equal to an 
out-and-out assassination. For, with a cunning worthy of him, he went into battle disguised, 
but suggested that Jehoshaphat array himself in royal uniform. By this plan he hoped the 
king of Judah would become the target of the enemy’s arrows and be slain, while he would 
himself be protected by his disguise, and thus escape. As he had anticipated, the enemy’s 
attack was directed against the person of Jehoshaphat by special command of the Syrian king, 
who mistook him for the king of Israel. Jehoshaphat saved, himself by revealing his identity. 
But Ahab did not escape; there flew across the field a chance arrow from an unknown bow; it 
found the joint of Ahab’s harness, and wounded him to tlie death. Although he lingered 
through the day and did not leave the field, he sank at evening in his blood-stained chariot. 
His army gave up the fight and bore their dead king to Samaria where, as they washed the 
royal chariot, the dogs licked up his blood as Elijah had prophesied they would. 

Ahaziah’s reign, following Ahab’s, was of short duration. A fall from his upper chamber 
resulted in injuries from which he died two years after he ascended the throne. Elijah appears 
again in this reign to prophesy the death of the king, and when the king sends out a company 
of soldiers to bring the prophet in a prisoner, he again commands the very fires of heaven, 
which smite the soldiers as with the lightning of death. When at last he comes into the king’s 
presence he rebukes him for sending to a prophet of Baal instead of to the prophet of the Lord 
to learn the issue of the injuries he had received from his fall. Again he predicts the king’s 
death, which prediction is soon fulfilled and Jehoram succeeds to the throne of Israel. 


CHAPTER V. 

ELISHA. 


ANOTHER prophet is now about to inherit the mantle of Elijah — Elisha, the husbandman. 

The first time we see him he is plowing with twelve yoke of oxen in a locality of the 
valley of the Jordan called “The meadow of the dance.” As he plods along after the lolling 
cattle, with no ambition beyond that of being a thrifty farmer, with no dreams but of harvests 
and plenty, a strange man comes striding toward him across the field; a dark, hairy, stern- 
browed man, who, without a word throws his mantle upon the plowman and strides on and out 
of sight. In this eccentric fashion Elijah has called Elisha to become his successor in the line 
of the prophets. No more plowing for this farmer of the Jordan valley. He makes a feast of 
two of his oxen, burns his plow, and gives himself up to a preparation for his great mission. 
No man ever with firmer resolution shut off his own retreat from duty by burning the bridges 
or the ships behind him than did Elisha when he burnt his plow and roasted his oxen. 

The divine wisdom often picks up a man for use just where human conceit would not be 
apt to look for him. Providence took a cattle raiser in Abraham and made him the sire of a 
mighty race. He took a slave in Joseph and made him a prime minister. He took a foundling 
in Moses and made him history’s greatest law-giver. He took a shepherd in David and made 
him a poet and a king. He took a captive in Daniel and made him a liberator. He took a 
fisherman in John and made him the Revelator. He took a tentmaker in Paul and made him 
the apostle of Christianity to the Roman empire. He took the son of a swarthy miner in 
Luther and made him a reformer. He took a tinker in Bunyan and made him an inspired 
dreamer. He took a spinner in Livingstone and made him the light of Africa. He took a 
frontiersman and railsplitter in Lincoln and made him the Emancipator. He took a plowman 
in Elisha and made him a prophet. We hear nothing of him until seven or eight years later, 
at the close of Elijah’s career, when we find him a constant companion of his grand old master. 
He seemed to be looking for an uncommon and triumphant close to Elijah’s career and he acted 
as though the glorious end were not far off. Elijah is not to die of hunger in the wilderness, 
nor beneath the juniper tree of grief and disappointment, nor in the gloomy cave of the rocks, 
nor in dungeon and chains, nor by the fire or sword, nor even on the mountains, as did Moses 
in the olden time. Did his quick ear once catch the far-off sound of abundance of rain which 
no other ears could hear ? And now, while walking on Jordan’s banks with his loved disciple, 
and passing dry shod through the stream which parted its waters before the sweep of his 
mantle, does not the keen-eared old prophet catch the distant sound as of the opening of 
mighty gates, the trampling of swift hoofs, and the rumbling of golden wheels beyond where 
the thunders sleep and the glorious stars keep sentinel? Watch him! Look at him once 
again! Majestic man! How tall he looks, and grand, and kingly! No poet ever fancied or 
artist ever delineated so noble a form. Not Angelo’s “ Moses,” not the Rhodian “ Colossus,” 
not Phidian “Jupiter,” not Homeric “Agamemnon ” wears half the dignity, and strength, and 
nobleness of this great prophet of the living God as he mounts the gleaming chariot of Israel 
and sweeps, a plumed victor, to the skies. Out of that sad, degenerate age rose the grandest 
character that adorns the history of God’s prophets in the earth, showing that the grace of God 
may conquer circumstances and environment and make characters more just and noble than the 
times, and inspire lives which are in sublime contradiction of the false philosophy which may 
dominate society. During the reign of the Athenian tyrants the wise and virtuous Socrates 

553 


554 


REBELLION ,, INVASION, AND FAMINE. 


teaches his philosophy; in Nero’s dark and bloody time Seneca gives forth his light in Rome; 
out of the political turmoil, ecclesiastical corruption, and religious degeneracy of the thirteenth 
century Dante rises in Italy; when Florence is given up to worldliness and social impurity a 
Savonarola appears to preach righteousness; in the cruel, oppressive, and superstitious days of 
Richard II. of England a Wycliffe becomes the morning star of reformation; during the 
reigns of Israel’s wicked, idolatrous kings appears the prophet Elijah. 

If it was ever proved true that “ Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,” it must have 
been during the unhappy and eventful reign of Jehoram, who succeeded his brother Ahaziah 
on the throne of Israel. Rebellions that were brewing even so early as Ahab’s reign now 
broke forth in all their fury. This king inherited trouble. Invasion, rebellion, and famine 
combined to bring distress upon the rapidly declining kingdom. For reasons of state Jehoram 
refused to give in his personal adherence to the Baal-worship which had been so earnestly 
supported by Aliab and Jezebel, but he still adhered to the calf-worship instituted by Jeroboam. 
During this reign the Moabite rebellion, led on by Mesha, broke forth, and Jehoram, though 
aided as we have seen by the kings of Edom and of Judah, was not able to subdue it. The 
Syrians, moreover, kept up a series of predatory incursions into the land which culminated in 
a most determined siege of Samaria by Benhadad and his allied chiefs. This siege was attended 
by a famine which brought upon the people indescribable suffering, so that they were driven in 
their insanity to the most horrible and inhuman extremes to satisfy their hunger. 

At that time as much as $5 was demanded for a quart of beans and $20 for the head of an 
ass, nor could food be had for love nor money. Women, in that frenzy of starvation, boiled 
and ate their own children. This famine was but one of the 350, or more, that have visited 
humanity in the course of history, but it was one of the most distressing. In studying the 
philosophy of these dreadful evils it has been found that they have resulted from such various 
causes as drought, frost, storms, earthquakes, destructive insects, ignorance of agricultural 
science, and war. In this instance war and drought combined to bring scarcity of food and the 
consequent miseries. Rarely have people been pushed to the extremity of eating human flesh, 
but this instance does not stand alone in the cruel history of famines. In England, since the 
beginning of the Christian era, the people have at times been driven to the necessity of eating 
the bark of trees, of making bread of fern roots, and even of eating the flesh of horses, dogs, 
cats, and vermin. Dufresnoy is authority for the statement that in the fifth century Italy was 
visited by such destitution that parents ate their children, as Josephus declares was also done in 
Jerusalem during the siege of Titus. As late as the eleventh century of the Christian era, 
Egypt suffered a seven years’ famine, during which the people not only devoured dogs and cats, 
purchased at a high price, but even ate animals that died of diseases, and finally hesitated not 
at making food of human corpses. The calamity that befell Israel had its natural causes; it 
was of the Lord, but of the Lord because according to natural laws. The people’s idolatries 
had enervated them. Sensuality had been introduced with the Baal and Venus worship which 
caused a rapid deterioration of the physical strength and moral vigor of the people. They 
could no longer marshal a large and victorious army of soldiers to resist invasion. Nor could 
they put a great industrial army into the field to develop the resources of the land. Their men 
were puny, effeminate, cowardly creatures, whose sensualisms had sapped their energies and 
quenched their spirit of honor, valor, and true manhood. Hence, the perpetual invasions of 
neighboring nations encouraged by their weakness, and hence in large manner the famine in 
spite of the drought was the result of industrial enervation, physical deterioration, and the 
generally demoralizing influence of base, unchaste idolatries. 

The king, blinded by his own sensualism, could not understand the philosophy of Israel’s 
misfortunes. To his shallow mind, Elisha, the prophet of Jehovah, was responsible for the 
famine. Just as the corrupt politicians of Florence blamed Savonarola for the calamities which 


I 


A WORTHY SUCCESSOR OF ELIJAH. 555 

he only predicted, and as Ahab made Elijah responsible for the woes which he prophesied, so 
Jehoram accused Elisha of bringing the famine upon Samaria, and vowed he would have the 
prophet s head. While in this national decline “ one woe doth tread upon another’s heels,” the 
people were witnessing displays of God’s power by their devoted prophet which should have 
convinced them of the error and sin of idolatry and won them back to the old paths of faith 
and righteousness. One light shone brightly and steadily in the darkness and storm of those 
troublous times. Elisha was a worthy successor of Elijah in the line of the prophets. It had 
been Elisha’s prayer, that double the spirit of Elijah might rest on him. When the grand 
and heroic old Tislibite ascended in triumph from Jordan’s banks, his faithful disciple cried: 
“ My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof.” This was doubtless 
a common phrase, expressive of the power and influence of the great man of God, and was 
equivalent to saying: “ The strength of Israel has departed.” Elijah was to the nation its 
truest defense, its greatest power, its “chariot and horsemen.” 

It is not seldom that one man comes to be recognized as of more value to the nation than 
all the chariots and horsemen of war. Philip of Macedon was made to stand in greater fear 
of Demosthenes and his oratory than of all the armies and navies of the Athenians. The 
invading nations came to dread the power of God’s prophets more than all the chariots and 
horsemen of Israel, for, when an Elijah or Elisha foretold the triumph of Israel’s army, the 
enemy knew they were doomed, because the God of the prophets fought against them and for 
the children of Israel. When a veteran commander of the Greek navy was approached by his 
men with the discouraging intelligence: “ The ships of the enemy number more than ours,” he 
replied: “ How many ships do you reckon me ? ” So might Elijah have said: “ How many 
chariots and horsemen do you reckon me ? ” When an old soldier in Spain caught sight of 
Wellington as he passed by him for the first time after his return to the army, he cried out with 
enthusiasm : “ Bless my eyes ! I had rather see thee come back, than see 10,000 men come to 

help us.” When Elisha saw his master vanish, he felt that the power and very salvation of 
Israel had departed, “ the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof.” But no; God had not 
withdrawn himself, nor had he recalled the spirit of prophecy. The mantle of Elijah fell at 
Elisha’s feet, the prophetic office remained and with it the spirit and power of the supernatural, 
for as Elisha caught up the sacred mantle and smote the waters of Jordan, lo! they parted as 
when Elijah himself wrapped the mantle together and smote them. The sons of the prophets, 
beholding the miracle, hailed Elisha as a true successor of Elijah, and as they shouted: “The 
spirit of Elijah doth rest upon Elisha,” they bowed before him in acknowledgment of his divine 
endowment with the prophetic spirit, and in recognition of the fact that supernaturalism as a 
force in history was perpetual in its providential activity. In proof of his divine mission 
Elisha wrought miracles which, in number and importance, were not inferior to the works of 
his master. By the power of God in him the son of the Shunammite widow was raised to life, 
the poisonous pottage was rendered harmless and wholesome, the twenty barley loaves were 
multiplied to feed bountifully an hundred persons, the iron ax was made to float upon the 
water, Naaman, the Syrian general, was healed of his leprosy, and many other wonders were 
wrought. But doubtless Elisha himself was the greatest miracle of his age; a miracle of 
character, of righteousness, of faith. Nations do not see until the great life has been lived and 
has become a conspicuous part of the best history of the past that that life is the greatest thing 
in that history. The power of such a man is not understood; people generally are as blind to 
the supernatural or providential influences accompanying a righteous soul into history as was 
the servant of Elisha blind to the prophet’s power when the Syrian host descended upon 
Dothan to seize and take him away captive. Alarmed at the multitude of horses and chariots 
that compassed the city, the fearful servant cried : “ What shall we do ? ” when, in proof of the 
fact that “ they that be with us are more than they that be with them,” Elisha prayed God to 



556 


SYRIAN INVASION—USURPATION OF JEHU. 


open the young man’s eyes, and he saw “ the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire 
round about Elisha.” If there had been need, doubtless there were times when God might have 
opened the people’s eyes to see not horses and chariots of fire but ministering angels, seraphs of 
mercy, round about the prophet. While the king was hunting him, and the king’s servant was 
commanded to behead him, the good prophet was praying for and prophesying better times. 
In answer to that prayer and in fulfillment of that prophecy the Syrians raised the siege, 
deserted their camp and in their precipitate haste left behind them sufficient provisions to 
relieve the city of its distress and famine. 

Elisha proved himself a veritable king-maker, extending his prophetic jurisdiction over 
Syria as well as Israel, and in fulfillment of his word, Hazael, one of Benhadad’s generals, 
succeeded him on the throne of Syria, though he assassinated the old king by smothering him 
in his bed. The courage and faithfulness of God’s prophet were fully tested when the forebod¬ 
ings of the calamitous results of the fulfillment of his prophecy broke his patriotic heart and 
caused him to weep as he addressed the Syrian general. He foresaw that Hazael would become 
a powerful scourge to the children of Israel; a barbarous, heartless, and cruel invader; yet 
he could not shrink from his high duty of foretelling Benhadad’s downfall and Hazael’s 
ascendency. 

The fears of Elisha were soon realized, as Hazael proceeded with dispatch to invade the 
dominion of Israel. Jehoram was joined by Ahaziah, the king of Judah. They met the 
Syrian invader and engaged in battle at Ramotli Gilead, where the Syrians proved victorious 
and Jehoram was wounded. As the king of Israel, suffering from his wound, accompanied by 
the king of Judah, returned to Jezreel he little dreamed that disaster and death were there in 
store for him. While Jehoram was resting and recovering at Jezreel revolution was brewing in 
his army. 

Elisha foretold the enthronement of Jehoram’s general Jehu, as king over Israel, and he 
sent a son of the prophets with oil to anoint Jehu and reveal to him his royal destiny. The 
captain of the king’s hosts was- accordingly hailed as king by the army. He immediately 
proceeded to make good his claims to imperial power by leading his legions to Jezreel where 
Jehoram was visiting his mother, Jezebel, and Ahaziah, the king of Judah. 

Jehu was a man of great dash and impetuosity, a sort of Marshal Ney, or Sheridan, who 
came on like the whirlwind or struck the enemy with the suddenness and force of the thunder¬ 
bolt. The watchmen knew who was advancing on Jezreel, for he drove furiously like Jehu. 
After the king had sent messenger after messenger who had not returned, but had been 
consigned to the rear of the advancing army, he mounted his royal chariot and went forth in 
person to inquire the cause of the army’s approach. When he learned Jehu’s mission and 
discovered treason and revolution, expressing his fears to Ahaziah, he turned to retreat, but the 
general’s arrow flew unerringly to his heart and as he sunk in his royal chariot Jehu’s captain 
hurled the dead body to the ground, and lo! the place was in the vineyard of Naboth which 
Jehoram’s father and mother, Ahab and Jezebel, had appropriated by robbery and murder. 
Ahaziah was also overtaken in his flight and slain, and his body was borne in his chariot back 
to Jerusalem for burial. 

Jehu had overthrown two kings and captured a throne. As the soldier-king advanced 
triumphantly into Jezreel, the wretched Jezebel, painted and bejeweled beyond all modesty, 
greeted him tauntingly from her window, but ere the words of insult were out of her mouth she 
was hurled to the pavement below to be trampled on by the war horses of Jehu and to be torn 
to pieces by the dogs of the city. Elijah had foreseen this awful fate of the idolatrous Zidonian 
wife of Ahab who had brought such corruption, disaster, and misery to the nation. The prophet 
had foretold, some fifteen years before, that the very dogs should eat her by the walls of Jezreel. 
Jehu exterminated the family of Ahab. Wholesale slaughter followed his victory. He was 




IDOLATRY CONTINUED—ISRAEL HASTENS TO ITS FALL. 557 

a man of blood; a ferocious soldier who seemed to think he was doing God service in destroying 
a 1 the workers of iniquity. He was an iconoclast and began to uproot and destroy the detest¬ 
able Baal-worship which had been so universally substituted for the worship of Jehovah. By a 
cunning and deceitful piece of strategy, he destroyed the worshipers of Baal in Samaria. The 
multitude had, by royal edict, been called to the place of idolatrous worship. They came 
unsuspectingly to join in the service which, they were given to understand, was not only sanc¬ 
tioned but commanded by the king. When the place of assembly was crowded with the 
devotees of Baal, a general massacre was ordered. The soldiers rushed in and hewed down the 
people with the sword. The image of Baal was shattered, and the very building was torn down 



THE KING AND THE PROPHET. 


and rebuilt as a draught house. Jehu, however, did not return to the pure worship of Jehovah, 
but still tolerated and sanctioned as the national religion the calf-worship, or the cult of Apis, 
introduced by the first king of Israel, Jeroboam. 

It was during the reign of Jehu that the signs of the times indicated the beginning of the 
end of Israel’s national power and history. “ In those days the Lord began to cut Israel short.” 
Idolatry had almost run its course; it had well-nigh sapped the nation of its virtue and its life. 
The arms of Israel grew weaker every hour; the strength of the invading nations became more 
and more irresistible. Hazael began to be felt in all the coasts of Israel, but Jehu seems to have 
lost his dash and vigor and made no determined or successful resistance as the insolent and 
inhuman Syrian smote them from the Jordan eastward. This Syrian devastation continued 









558 


THE VICTORY AND LOSS OF ISRAEL. 


through the reign of Jehoahaz until the army of Israel was reduced to fifty horsemen, ten 
chariots, and 10,000 footmen. What a decline of military power from the days when Jeroboam 
was able to put into the field 800,000, or at lowest estimate 80,000, mighty men of valor! What 
a comment on the degenerating influence of a sensual idolatry! Nations that had stood in awe 
of Israel a century before now held her in contempt. She seemed for one spasmodic season of 
revival in the reign of Jehoash to reassert her pristine independence and military spirit. Three 
successive times, in fulfillment of Elisha’s prophecy, Jehoash met and defeated the Syrian 
invaders and regained lost territory. When Amaziah, king of Judah, insolently challenged him 
to war, he met him face to face at Beth-shemesh, defeated him, took him captive, marched upon 
Jerusalem, broke down the walls, and despoiled the temple and the royal palace of their 
treasures of silver and gold. For the first time in the history of this national division had Israel 
been able to overcome Judah so completely; for the first time did Israel’s arms assail and 
destroy the walls of the holy city; for the first time did the descendants of Jacob lay profane 
hands on the temple and rob it of that precious furniture which symbolized the faith of a high 
and righteous ancestry. No reacquisition of territory, no spoils of sacred temple and royal 
palace, however, could compensate Israel for one great loss which she suffered in the reign of 
Jehoash. Elisha the prophet, who had been the light of Israel for many years, who had been 
divine truth, wisdom and power to five eventful reigns, passed away. The king bowed weeping 
at his bedside and cried, as Elisha himself had cried when Elijah ascended: “My father, my 
father, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof.” Royalty acknowledged that the 
strength of Israel was not in her arms or in her revenues, but rather in the prophet of the living 
God. It was in those last moments that Elisha promised deliverance from the power of the 
invading Syrians. Me commanded the king to bring bow and arrows and open the window of 
the sick chamber toward the east. Then as the king placed the shaft to the string, held the bow 
with a strong, firm hand and drew the arrow to the head, the thin, trembling hands of the dying 
prophet rested on the hands of the king and Elisha huskily cried: “Shoot!” Away sped the 
arrow. It meant that Jehoash should free the land from Syria. The king grasped the 
remaining arrows at the bidding of the prophet and struck the ground three times in token of 
the three several victories which he should gain over the nation’s enemy. Elisha was disap¬ 
pointed ; the king should have continued to strike until there had been given the promise of 
the utter destruction of Syria. 

But Elisha’s work, and Jehoash’s as well, passed on to others. The prophet, however, in 
his death, was still the embodiment of supernatural energy. The dead coming in contact with 
his lifeless body were reanimated and the miracle of resurrection occurred in his very tomb. 
Did it not mean that the power of the good man survived him ? In the memory of him perpet¬ 
uated, is there not the inspirational power of new life ? Others shall touch that life if only in 
thought, if only by study and contemplation of its virtues, and be raised thereby out of 
nothingness, out of oblivion and death, into a virtuous self-assertion, into positive being, into 
great purpose and high aim, into immortal activity. At the tombs of the great and good the 
generations of progressive humanity catch the spirit and power of fresh life. Ambition of the 
high and holy sort is kindled anew when men walk among the tombs of poets, heroes, philan¬ 
thropists, and statesmen, who sleep in stately Westminster of England, in Santa Croce of 
Florence, in the Pantheon of France. And when the nation’s children lay the flowers on the 
graves of our soldier dead there seems to come from this laureled and sanctified dust the power 
of a new patriotism, the awakening inspiration of an immortal heroism, an energy that creates 
within the spirit of self-sacrifice and brotherhood. 

Oh, that a dying nation might have touched that prophet’s tomb and caught therefrom 
the power of a new life! As Robert Hall said : “I buried my materialism in the grave of my 
father;” how grand it would have been if Israel could have said: “ We buried our idolatry in 


THE DAWN OF PROPHECY 


559 


the tomb ot our prophet!” They might have been able to say, if they would: “From that 
tomb, from the last touch of the good and mighty man, from thinking on him as he slept and 
on the life he lived, the power he had, the truths he taught, and the light his spirit shed 
abroad, we have come endowed with a new purpose, a new faith, a new life.” 

There was power in Elisha’s bones to raise the dead, but it had been proved that, with all 
his divine illumination, his prophetic spirit, his gift of miracles, his divine wisdom, he had not 
the power morally to revive a nation dying of idolatry and sensuality. Israel had two great 
prophets during the history of her separate national existence. These prophets — Elijah and 
Elisha—were endowed with the twofold gift of prophecy and miracles. They were not men of 
letters, but of action. They left the world no contribution to literature; their names belong 
wholly to the history of events. They had no history to write, but much to make. They 
were oral teachers of the truth which inspired them, and in this respect differed somewhat, if 
not quite significantly, from such prophets as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, whose names 
hereafter belong to the literature of God’s people as well as to their history. 


CHAPTER VI. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPHETISM. 

T HE progressive evolution of prophetism may be traced through a thousand years or more of 
sacred history. The functions of the prophetic office become more and more numerous and 
diversified, while the power of the prophet grows in historical significance with the unfoldings 
of Hebrew nationalism and the culminating development of the Messianic idea. 

The prophet, in all this providential history, has been a medium of divine communication. 
Through him has poured the stream of moral light by which the divine wisdom has revealed to 
the world the paths of righteousness and truth. 

In the far-off time of the Abrahamic beginnings of sacred history, God, in a dream to 
Abimelech, designated Abraham, a prophet. The prophetical function was then apparently 
limited to the gift of intercessory prayer. When Aaron was appointed as Moses’ prophet 
doubtless it was intended that he should be no more than a counselor of his chief, or, possibly, 
his spokesman, since Moses had originally no such gift in public, diplomatic, or forensic speech 
as Aaron. When the children of Israel were in the Wilderness and were murmuring against 
the manna, which had become a very monotonous if not almost nauseating diet, Moses sought 
God for aid to bear the burden of responsibility which was crushing him down. It was then that 
Moses, in obedience to God’s commands, called together seventy of the elders and officers of the 
people, and they received an endowment of the same spirit which rested upon Moses, therewith 
to share with him the burden of official responsibility. When the spirit came upon them they 
began to prophesy. This may signify, simply, that they began to speak and to teach the people 
by explaining the ways of God, exhorting to faithfulness, and encouraging them with promises 
of coming good. This spirit fell upon the elders and officers as they were assembled at the 
tabernacle. Others received the same endowment; although they did not observe the formality 
of meeting with the elders they were evidently fit men to be intrusted with the power of exhor¬ 
tation and the spirit of prophecy. Eldad and Medad gathered a company of the discouraged 
and complaining people about them in the camp and broke forth in prophecy or exhortation, 
haranguing them in cheerful, hopeful terms and helping them to look toward the brighter 
future. A complaint was lodged against these two sanguine stump-speakers of the camp, these 



560 


PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPHETIC POWER. 


optimistic prophets of better things, which brought from Moses the exclamation : “Would God 
that all the Lord’s people were prophets.” Would that they all were looking on the bright side 
of things, talking hopefully and teaching the true doctrines of providence! Here, for the first 
time, appears the idea of special spiritual endowment for the exercise of the prophetic function. 
The spirit that rested on Moses was imparted to the elders, and without any ceremony or 
ecclesiastical formality it came upon Eldad and Medad. The possibility of all the Lord’s 
people becoming prophets in that limited sense may be implied from the exclamation of Moses; 
the fitness for that work was but the endowment of the Spirit: “ Would God that all the Lord’s 
people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them.” The gift of mira¬ 
cles, of visions, of dreams, or of foretelling future events need not have accompanied, save in 
exceptional cases, the spirit of prophecy. Evidently the gift of visions was early bestowed upon 
certain prophets who were at first called Seers. When God appeared to Moses, Aaron, and 
Miriam in the tabernacle at Hazeroth, he said: “ If there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, 
will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.” This 
seeing of visions and dreaming of dreams seems to be a new function of the prophetic office. 
God’s communication with Moses was not by dream or vision, but face to face. That privilege 
was granted to Moses only. From his time on, the prophet who became the agent of a divine 
communication to the people must have received the communication by the vision or dream, or 
by such an endowment of the spirit as came upon the seventy elders. When the time was ripe 
for this kind of communications, and the prophetic office assumed an essential importance in the 
development both of the monotheistic and Messianic idea, God promised his chosen race a 
prophet from the ranks of the common people. The people had requested that God reveal 
himself no more by fire nor by strange and supernatural voice. In answer to this request, 
which was inspired by their awe and fear, God promised to raise them up a seer from their 
midst into whose mouth he would put his words. Thus the prophet came to be more than a 
gifted teacher or preacher; he came to be the inspired medium of the communication of God’s 
thought to man. He began to speak as he was moved by the Spirit, and he spake the word 
which God, by inspiration, put into his mouth. He was the oracle of God. The power to 
foretell events becomes now a gift inseparable from the prophetic office. One of the tests of the 
true prophet — a negative test it is true — was to be recognized in this, that “when a prophet 
speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing 
which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously.” 

So important was this office that the people were held responsible for their treatment of the 
divine communications which proceeded from the prophet’s lips. “ Whosoever will not hearken 
unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” Moreover, death 
was the penalty for the presumption of speaking a word in God’s name which God had not 
commanded to be spoken. The person whom God called to this high and holy ministry was 
more than a gifted philosopher, lawmaker, teacher, or poet; 'more than a Plato, an Aristides, a 
Lycurgus, a Homer. The poetical afflatus did not constitute him a prophet; philosophical 
acumen did not make him a seer; learning, logic, and eloquence did not authorize him to speak 
in the name of God. The gift of the Spirit, and the gift of the divine word to speak to men, 
were essential to prophetic authority and power. 

As Hebrew theocracy developed toward institutional government and a definite monar¬ 
chical nationalism, this office became a more clearly defined institution and shaped itself to 
become an essential part of the new nationalism. Samuel was the last prophet of the Jewish 
theocracy and the first of the Jewish monarchy. He both witnessed and largely helped to 
effect the religio-political transition from a government of judges to a government of kings. 
With Samuel the sacred office took on a new importance, and the prophet became a most 
potent political and historical factor. A school of the prophets was established, where men 


INFLUENCE AND AUTHORITY OF THE PROPHETS. 


561 


were educated for the high and influential functions of national teachers. What the university 
or theological seminary is to the Gospel ministry of to-day that school was to the ministry of 
the old dispensation of law and symbolism. The sons of the prophets or the students of those 
schools prepared themselves to perform whatever duties of the prophetic office God called them 
to. They became the preachers and teachers of the nation. They explained the law and were 
recognized as the exponents of the theocratic principles of their religio-political constitution. 
To them the people looked for instruction in ethics and righteousness. All of them were not 
necessarily endowed with the gift of miracles or of visions, or with the power to foretell future 
events, nor were they all so filled with the Spirit as to become the inspired medii of verbal 
communications from God. Many of them were like the preachers of to-day, only learned, 
righteous, thoroughly consecrated men, who spoke the truth as they understood it, explained 
the law as they had the genius to do, and exhorted the people to right living with all the native 
earnestness of good and holy men, but without any special divine illumination or inspiration 
which made them the infallible oracles of God. From among them, however, God called 
certain men to exercise such power as working miracles, seeing visions, dreaming dreams, 
conveying definite, inspired verbal messages to the people and the nation, and foretelling 
future events. 

This latter class became conspicuous in the eventful history of Jewish nationalism. From 
their ranks rose the men who wielded greater power than kings in national politics, and 
mightier influence than generals on the field of battle. From these chosen few came the poets, 
musicians, historians, and ethical writers who created the national literature and directed its taste 
and culture. The history of the prophets, therefore, cannot be less interesting and instructive 
than the record of the kings and military heroes of the Jewish people. Had not Homer as 
much to do with the upbuilding of Grecian civilization as Themistocles, or Demosthenes as 
Miltiades? Were not Phidias, the artist, and Plato the philosopher, as liberal contributors to 
Athenian greatness as Pericles ? The greater history of Germany cannot be written, with all 
her emperors and generals, if we leave out of the record the names and work of Luther, Goethe, 
Kant, and Beethoven. The glory of France comes from the Calvins, Pascals, Fenelons, and 
Victor Hugos, no less than from her Turennes, Colignys, Mirabeaus, and Napoleons. Then, 
with all the pride which England takes in Alfred the Great, Elizabeth, and Victoria; in 
Nelson, Wellington, Marlborough, and Cromwell, how little, after all, would be her boast if 
she could not inscribe on her resplendent scroll of fame the names of Wycliffe and Chaucer, 
Bacon and Hooker, Shakspeare and Milton, Wesley and Tennyson. Short as the history of 
the American Bepublic is, we are glad to put beside the names of Washington, Lincoln, and 
Grant the equally glorious names of Mather and Roger Williams, Asbury and Channing, 
Whittier, Longfellow, Bryant, and Lowell. 

The prophets of that olden time stood for the intellectualism of their age and country. 
They dreamed the nation’s dreams, and sang the nation’s songs. From them came the inspira¬ 
tion of learning, taste, and art. To them is due the credit for the nation’s immortality in 
written and perpetuated history. It was Samuel’s high distinction to anoint Saul as king of 
Israel and, after him, great David. But higher still was his honor when he established those 
schools of the prophets from which the true light of learning and culture was to shine, 
blending with the beauty of poetry, the charm of music, the fascinations of art, and the 
grandeur of history, all the glory of inspired promise, heavenly revelations, and divine 
righteousness. Whence came the first suggestion of a temple—a temple worthy at once of the 
purest artistic taste of the age, the noble monotheistic conceptions of the race, and the Messianic 
significance of Jewish symbolism, Jewish prophecy, and Jewish history? That first conception 
was born in the brain of Nathan. All the plans of David and all the achievements of Solomon 
which resulted in crowning the sacred mount with the temple of cedar and gold, the highest 


562 


EARLIER AND LATER PROPHETS CONTRASTED. 


triumph of Hebrew taste and art, if not of Hebrew devotion and hope, were but the blossom 
and fruit of the seed-thought first planted in the mind of Nathan the prophet by a divine 
inspiration. Where will you look for the center of the nation’s musical culture and find the 
first endeavorings of that sublime genius which was to fill the temple with lofty strains on the 
day of its memorable dedication? In the school of the prophets. If Samuel was not the 
founder of the first musical college, he was doubtless the first to introduce the study of music 
into the curriculum of the school of the prophets. By Samuel’s direction, Saul, the king, once 
found himself among the prophets, and as he met them, a great company coming down from 
the hill of God, their exercises of worship, prayers, and praises were accompanied by the music 
of psaltery and tabret, pipe and harp which they carried before them. Thus the sons of the 
prophets recognized music to be one of the accomplishments of, and, possibly, made the mastery 
of some instrument a part of, their preparation for their ministry. 

The more highly developed functions of prophetism—which created the great mass of the 
national literature, foretold distant events of that history which was yet to be, and set forth the 
signs of the fulfillments of Messianic hope and promise—appear almost at the lowest pitch of 
national decline. In the darkest political days of all this Jewish history shine forth the 
brightest predictions of the Christ to be. Out of the most hopeless and distressing times comes 
the finest and most characteristic literature of the Hebrew genius. With the worst kings are 
found the noblest seers. In the blackest sky of national misfortune and degeneracy shine the 
brightest stars of prophetic song and eloquence. Many of the prophets following Samuel, and 
who were remarkable for their deeds, made no contribution to the national literature, no contri¬ 
bution to the Inspired Scripture which was to be the Word of God to all nations and to all ages. 
Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Jehu, Elijah, and Elisha were intimately related to the kings and by their 
influence helped to fashion the character of their times. Thus we associate as history-makers, 
Nathan with David, Ahijah with Jeroboam, Shemaiah with Rehoboam, Azariah with Asa, Jehu 
with Baasha and Jehoshaphat, Elijah with Ahab, and Elisha with Jelioram and Jehoash. None 
of these prophets were authors of writings which have come down to us. They were all men of 
action, men of special oral power, who concerned themselves with passing events, but some of 
them wrote no living word for future times, nor seemed endowed with the power of foretelling 
far distant events. They prophesied the outcome of a battle or of a king’s illness, or of an 
international conflict, but saw not the far-off thing which must come to pass, and had no gift of 
Messianic prophecy. 

But now we come, in the evolution of prophetism, to what may be called the literary 
prophets—the creators of the Hebrew prophetic literature. The works of sixteen such writers 
have been preserved. These have been divided according to their importance into greater and 
lesser prophets, as the painters of early art history have been divided into the ranks of the 
great masters and the little masters. 

The greater prophets are Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and, possibly, Daniel. From the 
standpoint of literature, these must rank first as having left the nation and the world the most 
extensive and important writings. Undoubtedly much of the old Hebrew literature has been 
lost, and from reference to books no longer known to exist the Scriptures indicate that Nathan, 
Gad, and Jehu were literary prophets. But such productions as “ The Book of Nathan, the 
prophet,” “ The Book of Gad, the seer,” and “ The Book of Jehu ” have disappeared. It is 
possible, however, that the future will bring to human knowledge these lost books, or fragments 
of them, or more extensive quotations from them than are preserved in the present Scriptures. 
The archaeological research which is rescuing from oblivion the literal correspondence of the 
kings of those ancient times may at some most fortunate moment find on tile or stone, long 
buried, the song of some forgotten poet or the lost prophecy of one of the inspired seers. 






CHAPTER VII. 

THE MINOR PROPHETS. 

TOEL, in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, was doubtless the first of those poet-prophets 
^ who have contributed to the literature of the Jews the highly colored word-pictures which 
will ever be recognized, not only as the most reliable history of their troublous times, but also 
as the true philosophy of that history. Plato reasons well when he holds that poetry comes 
nearer the living truth than history. When Joel, with a marvelous flow of impassioned meta¬ 
phor, simile, and allegory, describes the religio-political condition of affairs, it is as though 
some masterful artist like'Vernet were painting the history of his own age for the Luxembourg 
of the national literature. Whether the prophecy of the coming of the palmerworm, the 
locust, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar is to be literally or figuratively interpreted remains 
a difficult question. Whether the coming of these pestiferous insects represented the invasions 
led on by Tiglatli-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar, or stood for the 
four great political powers, Assyrian, Medo-Persian, Macedonian, and Roman, or were actual 
and historical attacks of these various species of the locust, may not be so important as the 
doctrine taught by the prophet that these attacks, and the consequent famine and suffering, 
were the natural and logical result of turning from Jehovah-worship to idolatry. While the 
prophet cries: “ Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain/’ and 
with divine eloquence warns the nation of its imminent dangers and calamities, he sees far 
down the coming years the light which fills his poetical soul with rapture, and ere his short but 
intense and powerful strain is ended he foretells the happy time when God shall pour out of 
his spirit upon all flesh; a time of deliverance and salvation; a time which Peter, 700 years 
later, believes has dawned when the Spirit comes with power upon the disciples of Jesus Christ 
on the memorable day of Pentecost. One fact is evident in these orations, or poems, of the 
literary prophets: in their Messianic hope they all seem inspired, ages before Tennyson caught 
the magnificent thought, to foretell 

“That one far-off divine event 
To which the whole creation moves.” 

Joel may be accepted as the type of the literary prophet, although it will be found that 
while he makes more or less of an impression upon his contemporaries and successors, neverthe¬ 
less Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, as well as the greater prophets, Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, have marked characteristics of their own, individuality of style and 
temper, thought and aim, which preclude the supposition that they were copyists of Joel. 
With their diversities of style, they all had in common this high, uncompromising spirit of 
patriotism and righteousness, and hesitated not, in the name of Jehovah, to denounce idolatry 
and its attendant corruptions and crimes. They feared not the face of man, but boldly, before 
the people and before princes and kings, rebuked all forms of unrighteousness and predicted 
the inevitable punishments which God was preparing for the nations. 

Amos was a simple herdsman of Tekoa, down in the country south of Jerusalem, and gave 
some attention to raising fruit. He was, in his own language, neither “ a prophet nor the son 
of a prophet ” — that is to say, he was not trained in the schools for that profession or calling. 
God called him as he followed the flock similarly as he called Elisha at the plow. It is 
significant that when corruption smites a nation the little virtue that at any time remains is 
generally found in the humbler ranks of society, with those who drive the plow, swing the ax, 

563 


564 


AMOS, THE FARMER-PROPHET. 


beat tlie anvil, and herd the kine. Why this is true, why corruption seizes first upon the upper 
classes, so-called, it may not be difficult to discern. The process seems to be this: Power 
acquires wealth; wealth emancipates from toil and sanctions ease; ease demands amusement 
to prevent ennui, and luxury to satiate desire; luxury develops effeminacy and sensuality. 
History is full of lessons, one of the most important of which is this, that the only security of 
society, and of the Church itself, is the preservation of a religious virtue and a virtuous religion 
that will inspire a ceaseless mental, industrial, and spiritual activity and prevent the people 
from falling into that ignoble ease which smites everything with decay and death. Though 
Amos, down there with his sheep and fig trees, living a simple, temperate, industrious, and 
devout life, knew little of it, the age was one of refined corruption and corrupt refinement. 
There had come in the reign of Jeroboam II. a revival of prosperity and culture. It was an 
age of wealth, wine, and ivory couches; of music, pleasure, and idolatrous ceremony. 

The rustic Amos received the call from God to go prophesy to this people — Israel. It 
took some time to find just the right man for the important work of the hour. He did not 
appear among the priests of Bethel; he was not to be found in the palaces of Jerusalem; he 
had not entered the school of the prophets; none of the clubs or social circles seemed to know 
him. But God’s eye fell upon a bronze-cheeked, rough-handed, home-spun man away down in 
the Tekoa country, where a farmer had to put two shekels’ worth of work on every shekel’s 
worth of wool or of figs he raised. This uncultured son of toil, who had slept on the moun¬ 
tains, fed on the wild fruits, and heard the lions and the thunders, was sent to preach to a 
people who were reclining on ivory couches, dancing and singing to the music of the viols, 
drinking themselves drunk with wine foaming in golden bowls, feasting and gluttonizing, and 
worshiping—a calf. When this farmer-prophet opened his lips he proved to be a veritable 
Boanerges, and cried: “ The Lord will thunder from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; 
and the habitations of the shepherds shall mourn, and the top of Carmel shall wither,” and on 
the prophet goes, peal after peal, flash after flash of what has been called a thunderstorm of 
prophecy. It was indeed a thunderstorm. It began with a roll of thunder; it closed in 
sunshine falling upon the rain-covered grass, and fruits, and flowers. When this thunderstorm 
was at its height there came this peal: “Woe to them that are at ease in Zion.” And as the 
heavens are lurid with the lightnings of prophetic woe, even Amaziah, the high priest, is so 
terrified that he would have Amos banished the kingdom as an enemy of the commonweal and a 
conspirator against the king. But the climax of the prophecy has been reached. Soon the 
light breaks through, the clouds drift away, and all the land lies like a garden after rain, for the 
promise of blessing shall fall upon the righteous remnant. 

Amos was the Robert Burns of the prophets — sanctified and inspired. He hated pride, 
cant, hypocrisy, and oppression, and was the singing champion of the wronged and suffering, 
the rustic lover of all honest men, as inveterate a foe of the golden calf as the Scottish plowman 
of the formal Kirk. 

Hosea was a contemporary of Joel and Amos, a native of the northern kingdom, but later 
a resident in Judah, where he wrote his book — one of the most perfect and artistic productions 
of Hebrew literature. For some reason, which is not clearly apparent, the kingdom of Israel 
from the time of the partition produced greater prophets than Judah ; the power of prophetism 
was there more conspicuous from the beginning. No prophets had risen in Judah with such 
power to determine events and shape history as Elijah and Elisha possessed in Israel. Hosea’s 
book, with all its artistic completeness, is but a cry of despair. Nothing appears of a higher 
poetical order in all that literature. Sad, elegiac, burdened with a true poet’s and a true 
patriot’s lament, it holds the mirror up to nature and bears the very form and pressure of the 
time. With a truly oriental imagination Hosea enriches his prophetic strain with the most 
delicate and exquisite, and, again, with the boldest and most sublime imagery to be found in any 


HOSEA AND MICAH. 


565 


literature. With incomparable outbursts, not only of splendidly figurative rhetoric, but also of 
sincere, heart-burning eloquence, he sets over against the idolatry and moral degeneracy of the 
age the infinite love of God. He foresees with a prophet’s eye the inevitable overthrow of the 
kingdoms of Israel and Judah, but recognizes, as a profound student of the philosophy of 
history, that idolatry is working this national ruin. Little heed is given to these outbursts of 
impassioned poetical feeling and inspired prophecy. Degenerate as the times may be, however, 
the prophets and poets are true — Dante, lifting his voice against the darkness and against the 
sins of Church and State which bring the darkness to Italy and Europe; Milton, pouring forth 
his sturdy, puritanical song upon the frivolous ears of the weakest generation of English 
history; Whittier, singing the song of freedom and labor when a nation is consenting to 
law-protected slavery and hesitating to make the Declaration of Independence mean what it 
declares; Hosea, true though all the age is false and all horizons black. Like a bright and 
golden thread woven through the coarse and somber fabric is this pure line of inspired proph- 
etism running through from the beginning to the end of this dark and tragic history of Hebrew 
nationalism. But hope triumphs, in the end, over sadness and regret, and on the clouds from 
which fierce lightnings have leaped at last rests the rainbow of promise. The prophecy of 
captivities is followed by prophecies of return; the land made desolate shall rejoice with the 
lilies and the corn, the olive and fir of a new spiritual life and prosperity. 

Micah prophesied concerning Samaria and Jerusalem during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, 
and Hezekiah. He was doubtless a disciple and pupil of Isaiah. There is hardly less dignity 
and elevation of literary style in the writings of the pupil than in those of the master, and the 
Messianic character of his theme is not less definite and prominent. With the Assyrians lifting 
their strong arms to deal a crushing blow to Samaria, and with the more distant fate of Jeru¬ 
salem clearly manifest to his prophetic vision, he raises his voice to a nobly hopeful theme, and 
sings of the blessed time when “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears 
into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war 
any more.” This prophecy’s fulfillment belongs to our century of Gospel enlightenment, of 
international laws and treaties, of reciprocity and arbitration. But what a bold, audacious 
prophecy for such a time as that, in which Micah, Hezekiah, and Sennacherib lived ! It is 
recorded that, when Charles Sumner delivered his oration on “ The True Grandeur of Nations,” 
in Boston, July 4th, 1845, and made a magnificent argument against war and in favor of 
universal peace, Jeremiah Mason said he should as soon think of getting up a society against 
thunder and lightning as against war. But Micah, the Charles Sumner of the ancient Jews, 
prophesied the day of universal peace, even when all the horizon was black with the dust of 
marching warriors, and all the earth was trembling with the shock of contending arms. In 
that old prophecy the angels found the keynote of the Gloria in Excelsis of the advent morn, 
and from the inspired Micah learned to sing: “ Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men.” 

This prophecy of universal peace was made possible by still another, which has had an 
import as significant and influential as any to be found in the literature of prophetism. Taking 
his eye from Samaria and its fall, from Jerusalem and its approaching doom, he fixes it, glowing 
with prophetic fire, on little Bethlehem, and behold! it assumes a glory which never belonged 
to the proud capitals of Judah and Israel: “ Thou Beth-lehem Epliratah, though thou be little 
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler 
in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Seven hundred years 
after these words were written they became luminous, burning words to the eyes of the Magi, 
who, journeying from the East to Jerusalem, and thence to little Bethlehem, guided by the star 
that rained its white splendor on the cradle of Jesus Christ, there presented gifts of gold, and 
frankincense, and myrrh, in celebration of the fulfillment of Micah’s prophecy, the advent of 
the long expected “Ruler in Israel,” of him that is “born King of the Jews.” If not as 


566 


NAHUM AND HABAKKUK. 


original in style as Joel or Hosea, it will not be questioned that Micah equaled these prophetic 
writers in greatness of theme and the Messianic spirit dominating his work. 

The “burden of Nineveh” which was imposed on the prophetic spirit of Nahum does not 
contain the internal evidence of the date of the prophecy, or of the dwelling place of the 
prophet. He is called the Elkoshite. There are two graves honored as the resting place of 
Nahum; one in Galilee north of Tiberius, and the other in ancient Assyria, now Kurdistan. 
It is not unreasonable to suppose that the prophet was a descendant of captives led away by 
Tiglath-Pileser. It certainly gives vividness to his writings for us to imagine Nahum as living 
at Nineveh, or in its vicinity, and as describing the city and portraying the character of its 
affairs preceding its downfall, from the standpoint of an eyewitness. He knew the “ Bloody 
City ” to be “ full of lies and robbery.” He heard “ the noise of a whip, and the noise of the 
rattling of the wheels, and of the prancing horses, and of the jumping chariots.” Foreseeing 
the desolation to be wrought by the ascendency of the Chaldean power and the decadence and 
overthrow of Assyrian empire, the prophet has a mighty faith in Jehovah which stays his heart, 
and comforts his own captive people, even yonder in the land of bondage: “ The Lord is good; 
a stronghold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.” Perhaps no 
prophecy has been more accurately and undeniably fulfilled than Nahum’s prediction of the 
downfall and obliteration of Nineveh : “ Nineveh is laid waste: who will bemoan her?” 

A single perusal of the short book of Habakkuk makes so profound an impression on the 
reader’s mind that he cannot but wish that the story told of Benjamin Franklin relating to it 
were authenticated. It is said that Franklin pretended to a company of infidels, one day in 
Paris, that he had found quite a remarkable old book, which, to his thought, was incomparable 
in its literary style. He read the book, and the savants were lavish in their praises of its force, 
spirit, and eloquence, and demanded the name of its author. Franklin, to their chagrin, told 
them it was written by the prophet Habakkuk, and was a portion of the Bible, which they had 
been denouncing. Zephaniah, who prophesied in the days of the good Josiah in Judah, had 
foretold the Chaldean and Scythian invasions, and the havoc to be wrought by their conquering 
arms. Habakkuk wrote, after the dreaded hosts of the conquerors had poured down upon the 
devoted land, and had commenced their devastating work. Zephaniah’s vision was greeted 
with a dark, hopeless picture of coming desolation. He predicted judgments and punishments. 
These were not intended for the Jews only, but also for the Philistines, the Ethiopians, and the 
Assyrians. In the midst of universal upheavals, revolutions, and national destructions, one 
people shall be preserved—“the remnant of Israel.” The prophet, looking down the centuries 
to wonderful spiritual manifestations, to the fullness of time, to God’s great day, breaks forth: 
“Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter 
of Jerusalem ! The Lord hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the 
King of Israel, even the Lord, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.” 
Habakkuk sees what is taking place in the ravages of victorious invaders. He realizes that 
the spiritual decline of God’s people is the cause of all their distresses and afflictions; hence his 
prayer, “ O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make 
known ; in wrath remember mercy.” Then, seeing the desolation as the result of the visitation 
of divine judgments, the prophet rises to one of the most sublime heights of faith in God to be 
found in Hebrew literature: “ Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in 
the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flocks shall 
be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet I will rejoice in the Lord, 
I will joy in the God of my salvation ! ” What can be more impressive than the mighty faith 
and stern righteousness, the abiding hope and integrity of those prophets of Jehovah who, in 
the midst of universal moral and political chaos, sang of the peace and of the Christ to be! 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE MAJOR PROPHETS. 

T)ROPHETISM reached the climax of its literary perfection in the work of Isaiah, whose 

ministry of nearly half a century extended from Uzziah to Hezekiah and included the 
reigns of Jotham and Aliaz. Unlike Amos, the rustic of Tekoa, Isaiah could boast aristocratic, 
if not royal, blood. The vision of God’s glory which was granted him opened his prophetic 
eyes, by contrast, to the sinfulness of the people, and when the angel flew from heaven and 
touched his lips with a burning coal from the altar he was ready to respond to God’s call for 
prophets, and cried: “ Here am I; send me.” There was a consecration to God, to truth, to 
country, and to martyrdom which redeemed that age and nation in some measure from utter 
disgrace and contempt. How truly one pure, heroic soul may save the reputation of a race! 
With this divine touch of fire and of power which sent Isaiah forth a messenger of inspiration, 
was associated, by consecration, the noblest natural gifts and highest scholastic attainments to be 
found combined in any one character of that age. Isaiah was the prince of prophets. His 
golden pen bore sceptered sway over the whole varied world of literary style and prophetic 
theme. This monarch in the realm of inspiration, from his throne of intellectual and spiritual 
authority, looked out upon the doings of kings and subjects, upon great national transitions, 
world movements, political convulsions, moral and religious transformations, historic evolutions, 
the march of eventful centuries, and the sway of those mighty forces which providence has set 
in operation for the solution of the problems of human destiny. 

The style of this prophet is rich and varied. If Hosea is the Raphael, and Ezekiel the 
Leonardo, Isaiah is the Michael Angelo of artistic literary prophetism. His book is the Sistine 
Chapel of Hebrew literature. Or, if Jeremiah is the Dante and Amos the Robert Burns, Isaiah 
is the “myriad-minded” Shakspeare of the prophets. What instruments of poetical expression 
was he not master of? From shepherd’s reed, and minstrel’s harp, and temple organ he 
sounded all the notes of simplest and sublimest music. With the subtlety of the dialectician, 
the profundity of the philosopher, and the serene contemplativeness of the mystic, he combined 
in his work the eloquence of the orator, the imagination of the poet, and the divine illumina¬ 
tion of the seer. The biographer of kings — for he wrote the life of Hezekiah and also of 
Uzziah — the historian of empires, the prophet whose happy vision had been blessed with the 
manifestations of God’s glory, the patriot-saint whose loyalty, courage, and exalted purity were 
a rebuke to the wickedness of high places and the unrighteousness of the age, Isaiah stands out 
conspicuously as the noblest individual combination of moral and intellectual manhood in the 
history of literary prophetism. 

Though at times this great soul seems to take a most pessimistic view of national affairs 
and of general historical outcomings, and though vividly to impress the people with the 
certainty and sadness of approaching disasters he assumes the garb of an ascetic and hermit, 
going about barefoot and clad in sackcloth, yet in the darkest day he sees the far-distant light, 
and sings of better times. Here the Messianic idea blazes forth in its full-orbed splendor, and 
Isaiah becomes the evangelical prophet. So clearly and unambiguously did he set forth the 
character, works, and mission of the Messiah that Philip, centuries later, when seated in the 
chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading the book, was enabled from its teachings to 
preach unto him Jesus. Jesus read this book and declared himself to be its fulfillment. With 
all the discouragements of the time in which he prophesied and with his gloomy forebodings 

567 


568 


CHARACTER AND DEATH OF ISAIAH—JEREMIAH CALLED. 


of impending disaster, Isaiah still saw the purpose of God making for righteousness and a 
world’s salvation through the agency of the remnant of the chosen race. So, while he prophe¬ 
sied captivities he also, in harmony with his co-prophets, foretold the return of the Jews to 
Zion. 

Isaiah is not a mere literary recluse, a study prophet, a library seer. He is a man of 
activity. He moves among men. He is in touch with every phase of this national life. He 
knows what is going on as well as what is coming on. His keen, intelligent eye is on national 
and international affairs. He foretells Sennacherib’s defeat, rebukes Hezekiah’s indiscretions, 
but also prays for his life. He is no celibate; he rears a family; greets his wife as a prophetess, 
and looks upon his sons not only with a father’s affection, but also with a patriot’s hope and 
pride. Here is the scholar in politics, type of the Adamses, Burkes, Gladstones, Sumners, and 
Lowells, whose college training and book learning, whose historical knowledge, esthetic taste, 
classical erudition, or poetical genius, rather than disqualifying them for higher politics, fitted 
them the better to serve their country and add luster to the national name. If the tradition 
that Isaiah was put to death by being sawn asunder at the command of King Manasseh may be 
trusted, that crime alone would be a very significant index of the degeneracy of the times and a 
proof of the heroic and martyr spirit of the prophets. A nation cannot poison a Socrates, 
behead a Paul, burn a Huss, banish a Dante, send a Cranmer to the stake, or saw asunder an 
Isaiah until it has lost both its righteousness and intellectualism, its power to appreciate the 
lofty character and the God-like mind. Those lips which the seraph had touched with a live 
coal from the altar of heaven were ever faithful to speak with burning, holy eloquence the word 
of God to men. 

Jeremiah, while yet comparatively youthful, was called to the prophetic office. Josiah, but 
twenty-one years old, was on the throne of Judah. From his coronation at the age of eight 
years he had proved himself a reformer bent upon uprooting idolatry and reviving Jehovah- 
worship. The prophet and the king saw eye to eye in the hopeful reaction from the degrading 
and demoralizing Baalism which had driven both nations to the brink of destruction. The 
hopes of the righteous and patriotic few, however, were soon dashed to the ground. Josiah, at 
the early age of forty, was slain in the battle of Megiddo while resisting with patriotic valor 
the hostile invasion of the Egyptians. What Jehoahaz, the choice of the people, might have 
accomplished in the way of reformations inaugurated by his father we only surmise, as his 
short reign of three mouths ended with his being kidnapped and sent in chains to Egypt, where 
he died in exile. The Egyptian power placed Jehoiakim, the elder brother of Jehoahaz, on 
the throne of Judah. The oppression of labor, the extravagance and profligacy of royalty, 
and the general demoralization which followed gave Jeremiah his prophetic opportunity. He 
found himself face to face with a new problem. He was now called upon, not to assist in a 
glorious reformation, but to resist an inglorious reaction from reformation, and his word of 
exhortation, encouragement, and hope became a cry of woe, alarm, warning, threatening, and 
lamentation. The untimely death of Josiah called forth his lamentation, and the prophet 
was instrumental in inaugurating a day of national mourning for this virtuous, God-fearing 
king. 

Jehoiakim, the usurper, proved to be an enemy of true prophetism, while he encouraged 
that counterfeit or false prophetism which had grown up and had been encouraged by wicked 
kings and wicked people to cry “ peace, peace,” when there was no “ peace,” and to speak unto 
them “ smooth things ” when the rugged truth would not be tolerated. That age would not 
hear its apostasy denounced; it was deaf to all the warnings of danger. Jeremiah, therefore, 
found himself held in daily derision, mocked and insulted by a people who had in their fickle¬ 
ness soon forgotten the virtues of Josiah and the beneficence of his reign, and had surrendered 
themselves to the tyranny of Jehoiakim and the indecencies of Baalism. Jeremiah, the 



ISAIAH 
















570 


PROPHECIES, PATRIOTISM, AND PERSECUTION OF JEREMIAH. 


prophet of this time, was preeminently a thinker and teacher, of somber, melancholy mood. 
Austere, fearless, denunciatory, and logically pessimistic, he stood out in bold relief from the 
background of social frivolity and national degeneracy. He was no Democritus, to laugh away 
the follies of his time. He was, rather, the Diogenes of prophets, vainly looking through the 
streets of Jerusalem for a single man that loved righteousness. The lantern of truth and justice 
was ever lighted and in his hand, nor did he 

“Gently scan your fellow-man.” 

He could not speak smooth things; rough things were the only medicine for the maladies of 
the age. He was no compromiser, no political or moral juggler. He never learned to 

‘ ‘ Suit the truth to ears polite, 

And snugly keep damnation out of sight.” 

National damnation was before them. How could he, as a patriot and a prophet of the 
Most High God, do otherwise than lift up his voice and cry aloud and spare not ? He stood as 
a wall of brass, to use his own apt figure. He tried to influence the national mind by the 
power of thought and the authority of truth. His literary work, in its sad, pathetic spirit, full 
of tears and woe, became the vehicle of the most intense and spiritual prophecy. No inspired 
writer reached profounder depths or seemed more completely mastered by the authority of the 
divine purpose than Jeremiah. If he possessed less of Shakspeare’s myriad-mindedness, and 
of Milton’s starry splendor, than Isaiah, he revealed greater Dantean depth and seriousness. 

The discovery of the long-lost book of the law when Josiah was repairing the temple made 
a profound impression upon the people and gave a mighty impetus to the revival of Jehovah- 
worship. Jeremiah’s message came just at that time of new spiritual awakening and received 
willing, eager attention. But when the reaction set in the prophet became unfashionable, 
irritating, and intolerable. He foretold the Babylonian Captivity, and, seeing the inevitable 
calamity, he advised submission to Nebuchadnezzar as the only policy that would save the 
people from untold suffering. The overthrow of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem were 
so clearly foreseen that he hesitated not to prepare the people for the calamity, and to make the 
suffering and misery as light as possible. Pashur, the governor of the temple, smote the 
prophet on the mouth for his outspoken convictions, and then put him in the stocks to become 
the butt of ridicule. Enraged by his warnings, the people in power and place sought again and 
again to kill him. The spirit of gloom and discouragement which overtook Elijah under the 
juniper tree finally took possession of Jeremiah, and he cursed the day he was born. He proph¬ 
esied the universal conquests of Nebuchadnezzar. In the significant symbolism of wooden 
yokes, which he made and sent to the kings of the surrounding nations, he set forth the subju¬ 
gation of the world to the power of Babylon. To teach by this same powerful symbolic action 
the subjugation of Judah, he wore a yoke and chain upon his own neck. He was regarded as a 
madman, and his arrest was ordered. Jehoiakim decreed his death for his supposed hostility to 
the throne and sympathy with the enemies of his country; whereas he was, with breaking 
heart, only foretelling by divine inspiration the inevitable results of the nation’s apostasy. Of 
all the noble and fearless prophets who had foreseen the destruction of Jerusalem and the 
captivity of the chosen people, Jeremiah alone was compelled to witness the fulfillment of the 
prophecies, the siege and downfall of the holy city. While the conqueror was thundering at 
the gates of Jerusalem, he was fearlessly and yet regretfully preparing the people’s minds for 
the worst, even for the triumph of Chaldean arms and the subjugation of Judah. For this he 
was imprisoned, and Zedekiah gave him up to those who hated him and thirsted for his blood. 
He was thrust into a loathsome dungeon, where he sank into the mire a most pitiable object, 
the victim of the nation’s idolatrous insanity. He was still in prison, though he had been 
released from this foul pit, when the captain of Nebuchadnezzar, by order of the Chaldean 






HIS DEATH AND BURIAL—VISIONS OF EZEKIEL. 


571 


king, released him. How truly was history giving wisdom and authority to the proverb: “ A 
prophet is not without honor, save in his own country ” ! 

Nebuchadnezzar honored the prophet; he could see that this righteous, gifted man was 
superior to his people and to his age. By order of the Chaldean conqueror, Jeremiah was 
given his choice of residence either in Chaldea or in Judah. He patriotically elected to remain 
in his native land. Here he counseled the governors who had been established by the Chaldean 
power, and became to them, as previously he had been to the kings of Judah, the warning and 
advising voice of God. He continued, also, to counsel his own countrymen. The upper 
classes, and the more useful middle classes, comprising the artificers and skilled workmen, 
had been carried off into captivity, not only to weaken the nation, but to populate certain 
undeveloped regions of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominions and to strengthen the arts and industries 
of Chaldea, while Chaldean colonists had been settled in the land; and this stern policy had 
reduced the remnant of Judah, although still numerous, to despair. But when an exodus into 
Egypt, under the advice and leadership of Johanan, was proposed, Jeremiah protested, and 
exhorted the people to remain where they were. The prophet’s advice was not heeded, and 
when the people fled into Egypt, Jeremiah accompanied them. There he prophesied, and 
there, virtually a captive in the very land whence Moses, centuries before, had led the chosen 
people, he spent his last days in humiliation among the humblest remnants of a once proud 
and mighty race. His death was a martyrdom. If the traditions may be relied upon, Jere¬ 
miah was buried in that foreign land, the national bete noire of the Hebrew race. In later 
times Alexander the Great, who had once gone to visit Diogenes, the philosopher, and said: 
“Were I not Alexander, I should choose to be Diogenes,” had the bones of the Hebrew 
prophet reinterred at Alexandria. The greatest pagan kings, Nebuchadnezzar and Alex¬ 
ander, were high-minded enough to respect, honor, and revere, not only the genius but the 
virtues of a prophet whom the Jewish kings had become too blind, too ignorant, too bestial, 
even to understand or to tolerate. This sad, sublime life — this majestic, melancholy char¬ 
acter—must ever impress the student of history as a rebuke to a nation’s depravity, a contrast 
to corrupt imperialism, and proof of the fact that even in the darkest hour of social and 
national degeneracy God hath not left himself without a witness. At all times there are in 
every land, among every people, great, potent, light-bearing individualities who become in their 
own degree and measure, with all their human limitations, the incarnations of God’s truth, 
the monuments of his grace and the epitomes of the redemptive, sanctifying possibilities of his 
purpose and his word. The Book of Jeremiah is the prophet’s autobiography and the nation’s 
obituary. 

Ezekiel, the last of these mighty men who created the prophetic literature of the Hebrews, 
prophesied in captivity. Jeremiah had not gone with his people over into Chaldea, but God 
raised up from among that captive people a true successor of the weeping prophet. He may 
have been a pupil of Jeremiah. 

Yonder on Chebar’s mournful hanks, Ezekiel is for the first time blessed with visions — 
visions more startling, grand, and awe-inspiring than any that had ever before greeted the 
inner eye of God’s inspired seers. As the gift of miracles was to Elijah, so was the gift of 
visions to Ezekiel, the striking, impressive characteristic of his prophetic mission. Visionary 
prophetism reaches its zenith glory in the dreams of Ezekiel. This writer was highly educated 
aud his work was purely intellectual. He was the scholar-prophet; not the scholar in affairs, 
in politics, in action, like Isaiah. As Elijah sought the solitude of the cave or mountain, 
Ezekiel enjoyed the seclusion of the study. If the former was the hermit of the wilderness, 
the latter was the hermit of the library. What an intense intellectualism penetrates all his 
rhetorical forms! What dramatic fire glows in all those figures! What audacity of thought! 
What fearful, awful heights the sweeping pinions of his imagination dare attempt! It is 


572 


THE BEGINNING OF THE END 


the end, the utmost limit, of literary prophetism — not the perfection of it, but rather the 
extravagance, the exaggeration of it. 

Ezekiel went beyond the limits of the purest literary art in prophetism. But was liis not 
a message, which, in its sweep and power, its awfulness and sublimity, transcended art and 
shook off the shackles of esthetic limitation and restraint? Did not the spirit and genius of 
prophetism at last soar out and beyond the earth and the skies, free, lost, to be consumed a 
sacrifice in the heavenly fires from which it came ? 

It was a dark time. The Holy City was in ashes. A nation’s glory had been quenched 
in blood. A once mighty people were in chains; their harp was on the willows and the yoke 
was on their necks. The glorious past was far away; the glorious future farther still. But in 
the darkness there was hope. The prophet, truest friend of God and truest friend of the 
people, brings words of comfort to a nation’s broken heart. Ezekiel’s book was a light to the 
people in exile. Although in his first prophecies he foretold the overthrow of Jerusalem, 
which soon followed, and although he unerringly predicted the universal triumph of Chaldean 
arms over the surrounding nations, there was running through all those prophecies of war, 
ruin, conquest, and subjugation, a gleam of light which burst at last from out the clouds and 
gloom into the full and joyous splendors of the Messianic hope. Standing in the midst of 
desolations, the crashing of thrones and the wrecks of empires, this great-eyed man of prophecy, 
penetrating the future, beheld the rise of the empire of righteousness, the everlasting and 
universal Kingdom of God. 

The post-exilic prophets, with all their hopefulness and spirituality, reveal the decline of 
literary prophetism. The golden age had passed. The glory of Hebrew letters, like the might 
of Hebrew arms, was of the yesterdays. That favored race was never more to know a military 
prowess like David’s, to boast an art like that which culminated in the creation of Solomon’s 
Temple, to produce a prophetic literature equal to that which came from the inspired genius of 
Joel, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. 


CHAPTER IX. 

THE DECLINE AND CAPTIVITY OF ISRAEL. 

I N fulfillment of the prophecy of Elisha, King Jehoash gained three notable victories over the 
Syrians before he passed away and left the royal power to his son, Jeroboam II. This 
name, Jeroboam, has a startling significance to the kingdom of Israel. There was no king of 
their sad, eventful history who was more responsible for the partition of the original kingdom 
and for the conglomerate system of worship which had been established and maintained as the 
national religion than the first Jeroboam. For this worship of the golden calf, which had 
never been uprooted, God blamed him. He it was who caused the people to sin as he led them 
to substitute this heathenish idolatry for the Jeliovah-worship, which had been their religion 
since God raised them up as a people. 

The reign of Jeroboam II., lasting forty-one years, might have seemed, at a superficial 
glance, to be characterized by a revival of the pristine military and industrial vigor, but a more 
careful study of the national conditions must have convinced any philosophical mind that the 
nation was not rising to a substantial and abiding prosperity, but was riding on the crest of a 
wave that was about to dash it to fragments against the might of foreign conquerors. It was a 



ASSASSINATION AND USURPATION—MOTIVE FOR CONQUEST. 573 

reign of greater light than Israel had known for years, but that new light was the last flame 
that leapt up from the smoldering embers, ere they lost their fire forever and were swept as 
ashes before the whirlwind. It was the last convulsive throb of the national heart, ere it sank 
into death and oblivion. The restoration of many of the ancient boundaries, made possible by 
the weakening of the Syrian power and the encroachments of the new power of Assyria upon 
this ancient enemy of Israel, gave Jeroboam II. a prestige which had not been enjoyed by any 
other king since the founding of Israel. With this reign began the higher literary life of the 
new kingdom. Amos and Hosea appeared with their poetical prophetism to teach a new intel¬ 
lectual life, as well as to inspire, if possible, a revival of Jehovah-worship. The hopes which 
the reviving taste, intellectualism, wealth, and military power kindled, were soon quenched by 
the misfortunes that followed the brilliant reign of Jeroboam. 

Zachariah reigned but six months when he was assassinated by the rebellious Shallum. 
This usurper, who had captured the throne, lived to enjoy his cruelly earned power but a single 
month when Menahem dispatched him and grasped the scepter, which he wielded for ten years. 
A more detestable, cruel, inhuman wretch never sat on Israel’s throne. His brutal treatment 
of women was enough to brand him a monster. Pekahiah, his successor, could maintain his 
supremacy but two years when Pekali, a son of one of the king’s captains, killed him. After 
twenty years this murderer was murdered and Hoshea seated himself upon the tottering throne, 
destined to fall with it and with the kingdom before the conquering power of the Assyrians. 
The invading nations had been growing more bold and insolent as they saw the decline of 
Israel, resulting from internal degeneracy and the corruption of the throne. As Pome in her 
decline tempted the ambition of conquerors who watched and waited for the opportune moment 
in which to sweep from the north with overwhelming force to complete the conquest of the once 
mighty empire of the Caesars, so Syrians, Egyptians, and Assyrians watched with greedy, 
ambitious eyes the waning of Israel’s power and saw the near approach of her inevitable 
subjugation. 

A national power had been developing in the East which was destined to swallow up all 
other powers and assume universal empire; Syria, Egypt, and Israel were doomed. Assyria 
was rising to assert dominion over the world and was rapidly advancing her haughty arms to 
the consummation of this ambitious design. Great Babylon was in the ascendency. During 
the reign of the inhuman Menahem, Pul, the king of Assyria, came against Samaria with a 
force which proved irresistible, except by the power of bribery. Gold has often been a more 
effectual resisting agency than steel, and many an invader has been bought off who could not 
have been fought off. The cruel and unjust object of historic warfare appears almost invariably 
to have been subjugation and tribute. Nations have built their own greatness on the ruin of 
others. They have replenished their own treasures by impoverishing and robbing their 
neighbor countries. The most abundant source of national wealth and prosperity by the old 
system of political economy was conquest and plunder. Hence the people were educated to war 
rather than to peaceful industry. The development of the natural resources of a country has 
often been neglected for the development of military power. A study of the great kingdoms of 
ancient history reveals the fact that statesmen, rulers, and people have recognized conquest, 
oppression, and tribute as the true philosophy of national wealth. So Assyria maintained, 
and the Macedonian power, and Rome, and Carthage. The strong nations did not hesitate to 
conquer the weak, despoil them of their meager wealth, and exact unwilling tribute from subju¬ 
gated and impoverished peoples. To-day, however, in this more enlightened age, every great 
nation should be able to glory in the fact that she never humbled a weaker power, oppressed a 
sister state, or robbed any people to enrich herself. Let her boast that the philosophy of her 
wealth is the intelligent industry of her citizens, and that by the development of her natural 
resources and the inventions of her genius, rather than by the terror of her arms, she builds up 


574 


ASSYRIAN INVASIONS. 


her national greatness and teaches the new political economy that the only legitimate source of 
national wealth is to be found in honest toil and enlightened, creative thought. 

Pul took money —1,000 talents of silver — and left Menahem in possession of his throne. 
The Assyrian, doubtless, obtained all he came for, and was content, without the shedding of 
Assyrian blood, to bring his invasion to so profitable an issue. The ambitious and greedy power 
which could exact such terms of the kingdom of Israel had another very satisfactory proof of 
Israel’s weakness and rapid decline. Assyria was, therefore, but the more encouraged com¬ 
pletely to despoil the falling empire of her remaining wealth and hasten the catastrophe of her 
ruin as a political factor on the earth. The invasion of the Assyrians led by Pul was soon 
followed by the still more important, and disastrous invasion of Tiglath-Pileser in the reign of 
Pekah. It is very difficult to place this Assyrian, Pul. His name does not appear in the 
Assyrian records. He may have been a general who, in the name of the Assyrian king, made 
conquests. He may have been Tiglath-Pileser himself. Rezin and Pekah had formed an 
alliance, offensive and defensive, between Syria and Israel, much to the alarm and apprehension 
of Jotham and Ahaz, kings of Judah. This alliance was formed with the intention of waging 
war against Judah and overthrowing the Davidic dynasty. It was through the solicitations of 
Ahaz, richly backed by money considerations, that Tiglath-Pileser essayed the conquest of 
these allied powers. He came on with the might of his victorious arms and swept all opposition 
before him, assaulting and taking city after city, and leading away captive tribe after tribe 
of that once proud and mighty, but now degenerate and contemptible people, who still, in their 
shame and national humiliation, boasted the haughty name of Israel. It demanded no great 
genius to overcome the tottering kingdom which from the beginning had been founded on the 
sand of a demoralizing idolatry. Long had God been patient with this people, while in defiance 
of his laws and his prophets they had been sowing to the wind. Now, the harvest time in 
God’s providential years has come, and by the inevitable logic that belongs to the operation of 
moral principle in society this careless, defiant race is beginning to reap the whirlwind. A 
comparatively insignificant creature becomes their captor. The tradition is that Tiglath-Pileser 
did not belong to a race of kings. Although he was the founder of a new dynasty, he had 
risen from the humble occupation of a gardener to the trade of conquest and sovereignty Here 
the pruning hook is beaten into the spear, and the plowshare into the sword, and the cultivator 
of vegetables becomes the conqueror of nations and ruler of empires. Again the dry and dusty 
lips of archaeology speak in harmony with the ever-living word of inspiration, and from the 
very ashes of vanished kingdoms, from the graves of extinct nations, and the almost forgotten 
mausoleums of ancient civilizations comes a voice of testimony to corroborate the voice of 
prophet and historian. Tiglath-Pileser is a name familiar to archaeology as it is found on slabs 
and cylinders which have preserved, through more than twenty-five centuries, the records of 
that olden time, and with his name are associated the names of the kings of Judah, Israel, and 
Syria, who came to dread the swift power of his arms, as in later times the Romans trembled 
at the name of Attila, the Hun. Broken and shattered by these two Assyrian invasions, Israel 
was soon fated to receive the third and final blow which would seal her national doom. 

Pekah, after an unfortunate but eventful reign of twenty years, was assassinated by Hoshea, 
who succeeded, after great opposition and bloody civil war, in establishing himself upon the 
throne. He was destined to be the last of a line of kings, beginning with Jeroboam, whose 
reigns were characterized by the most revolting political crimes and the basest social and 
religious impurities that stain the records of ancient history. Blow after blow had fallen upon 
the wretched people. Assyria’s mighty arm gathered strength by conquest until at last Shal- 
manezer completed what Pul and Tiglath-Pileser began — the destruction, subjugation, and 
captivity of the ten tribes of Israel. Hoshea, the last king of Israel, in his extremity and 
despair sought the aid of So, the king of Egypt, and made a futile endeavor to shake off the 





























576 


THE ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY. 


yoke of Assyria which had been imposed by Pul and Tiglath-Pileser in their successful inva¬ 
sions. After a siege of three years or more, Samaria was taken and destroyed. Sargon ended 
the conquest inaugurated by Shalmanezer, and drove the children of Israel into captivity. The 
record of this siege and captivity is preserved in the Assyrian inscriptions. The number led 
into captivity is stated on the Assyrian monuments to have been 27,280 men. 

While Israel was declining, Assyrian civilization was advancing rapidly toward its culmi¬ 
nating power and splendor. Sargon embodied the spirit of the new national power, and proved 
himself to be the most progressive and enlightened monarch of his age. The internal improve¬ 
ments of his empire spoke as highly of his genius and character as his military exploits of his 
ambition. He developed the resources of his dominions and peopled unpopulated districts with 
the captives taken in war. He built and embellished cities, encouraged the arts and sciences, 
waged extensive and important wars against the greatest powers, and became, if we may judge 
by Assyrian sculptures, inscriptions, and monuments, one of the most powerful and progressive 
of the Assyrian monarchs. What a contrast to any one of those kings whose crimes and igno¬ 
rance hastened the decline and sealed the doom of Israel! Hoshea, who had assassinated a king 
to capture a crown and usurp a throne, was taken by the Assyrian and ignominously put to 
death. The throne was empty. The kingdom was destroyed. The people were led away 
captive to colonize the banks of the Euphrates and develop the agricultural resources of a 
strange land, which was to be enriched more by the industry of a subjugated and captive people 
than by the spoils of war, the tribute of vassals, or the golden treasures of plundered palaces 
and temples. 

The Israelites were undoubtedly the best of agriculturalists, if not the foremost artisans 
and mechanics, and they must have introduced a much needed element of prosperity into the 
practical, political economy of Assyria. They were given positions of trust, and, as with Moses 
and Joseph earlier in Egypt, and Daniel and Zerubbabel in Babylon, their best men were hon¬ 
ored with responsibilities of office. The masses of the captive people, however, were doubtless 
put to agricultural pursuits for the development of the material resources of the land. Herein, 
moreover, they became to the Assyrians most helpful instructors in the industrial sciences. 

Kennel finds an historical analogy, if not parallel, between the policy of Sargon of Assyria 
and Peter the Great of Russia. The latter sent the captive Swedes into Siberia, not only to 
reclaim the dreary waste and develop its natural possibilities, but also to introduce to the native 
inhabitants the superior arts, sciences, and manners which had been cultivated by the Swedes. 
It may be supposed that Sargon was too sagacious to lead all Israel away captive — that would 
have been an undertaking of very questionable policy, if not a commissary impossibility. The 
expatriation of at least 1,000,000 of people would have involved difficulties of transportation 
and expense which might well have daunted the wisdom of a Sargon. If, as the Assyrian 
inscriptions indicate, only about 28,000 were expatriated, or about one out of every thirty-five, 
then it is quite reasonable to suppose that Sargon was as wise as Nebuchadnezzar, who, in after 
times, led away into captivity only picked men — men who stood in the first rank as artisans, 
warriors, scholars, agriculturalists, and laborers; the able-bodied and able-minded of Israel. 
He could not have been so impolitic as to have emptied all the poverty, viciousness, and incom- 
petencv of that degenerate nation into his own land to poison and degrade it. If the conqueror, 
however, despoiled Israel of her best social, intellectual, military, and industrial elements, and 
left behind him in the subjugated land only the base, incompetent and worthless, how completely 
shattered and ruined must the conquered nation have been ! 

The fate of the ten tribes has been one of the most perplexing problems of history, and 
theories without number have been invented to account for their whereabouts subsequent to their 
captivity and settlement in “ Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of 
the Medes.” The Afghans, the Tartars, the Nestorians, the Mexicans, the North American 


FATE OF THE TEN TRIBES. 


577 


Indians, and even the Anglo-Saxons, have been recognized as the descendants of the “ lost ten 
tribes ” by theorists who have considered the solution of this problem one of the most essential 
achievements of the historian. But it is coming to be admitted more and more conclusively 
that the national and tribal identity of the ten tribes of the Assyrian Captivity has been 
absolutely destroyed — destroyed through social, political, and even religious absorption and 
assimilation by other nations and peoples. 

The ten tribes had established their independent nationalism on a new religious basis, 
and, by the act of Jeroboam in instituting the bull-worship as the national religion, they 
repudiated the fundamental principle of the ancient theocratic constitution. From that point 
they began their departure from true Israelism — from true national, and religious, and even 
racial Israelism. The introduction of a foreign and idolatrous cultus was an introduction of 
heathenism into the social life and national character. They were no longer a separate and 
peculiar people. Their alliances — military, commercial, and even matrimonial — separated 
them more and more widely from the original Israelitish type. When the picked men of the 
nation were expatriated, Sargon sent over into the conquered land colonies of Assyrians, who 
introduced their foreign customs and religions. This mingling of Assyrian and Israelitish 
elements reduced still more the fraction of original blood and genius. Possibly many of the 
remaining Israelites were absorbed by Judah after the Assyrian, and before the Babylonian 
Captivity. 

The captives were also doubtless assimilated by the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, and, by 
intermarriage, lost their tribal and even racial identity. Many of those captives may have 
preserved and handed down to their children their Israelitish characteristics, and when Judah, 
in after years, was led away into captivity, the descendants of these faithful few may have 
mingled with the newly expatriated tribes, to be finally absorbed by them, and on the return 
after the seventy years’ exile they may have lost their tribal identity in the one new Jewish type 
which remained to carry out the will and purpose of God until Shiloh came. 

Whatever may be the true philosophy of the disappearance of the ten tribes as a distinct 
and historic national organism, the true significance and the divine meaning of it seems to be, 
the fulfillment of the word of prophecy. The Lord removed Israel out of his sight — suffered 
its national annihilation. And thus perished forever a form of nationalism which denied the 
spirit of righteousness, forsook the living God, and based itself on a cultus of superstition, 
idolatry, and sensualism. 


CHAPTER X. 

JUDAH AT WAR. 

T HE high national expectations which had been inspired in the southern kingdom by the 
genius and devotion of Jehoshaphat were destined to vanish like the baseless fabric of a 
vision. Joram came to the Davidic throne under most favorable auspices. His illustrious 
father had made the name of Judah honorable among the nations, and the surrounding world 
stood in wholesome awe of her prowess. Internal harmony and prosperity, with external peace, 
united to furnish the conditions for great commercial, intellectual, and spiritual progress. But 
Joram, the heir of wealth and royalty, displayed none of his father’s virtues, nor had he the 
ability or inclination to carry out the improvements and reforms inaugurated by Jehoshaphat. 
It is little in extenuation of his idolatry and crime, that one may argue the dominating influence 
of his wife. But what better could have been expected to come from his alliance with Atlialiah, 
the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel? Through her influence, Joram turned from his father’s 
religion, accepted idolatry — the religion of his father-in-law — quenched the fires of spiritual 
and intellectual revival which had leaped to new life, murdered his own brothers, and proved 
himself the antithesis of his father in character, and worthy in all wickedness of his idolatrous 
consort. 

No more revolting sins and crimes have ever been perpetrated than those which have been 
instigated by conscienceless and vicious women. The record of wifely influence would form a 
most instructive chapter in the political and religious history of this world. Man has never 
accomplished more glorious deeds than when under the influence of noble, virtuous, and devoted 
woman, nor has he ever sunk to lower depths of infamy than those to which the influence of 
vicious woman has had the power to plunge him. The character of Esther, shining with the 
beauty of her personal charms and her transcendent virtues, becomes a power in history and 
an element in the philosophy of a nation’s destiny by the influence which she exercises so 
righteously over the illustrious Ahasuerus. The high-minded Calpurnia, whose name was the 
synonym of virtue in Rome, swayed an almost imperial scepter over the will and judgment no 
less than over the stern affections of Julius Caesar, and it was in disobedience of the request of 
that devoted wife that he went forth unsuspectingly to meet assassination on the fatal Ides of 
March. Trajan owed his enviable and unique title of “the good emperor” to the influence of 
his chaste, intelligent, and patriotic wife, Plotina. The military triumph, if not the imperial 
ascendancy of Septimius Severus, was largely due to the charming and truly womanly influence 
of Julia Domna. When the Christian missionaries first appeared in England it was through 
the solicitations of Bertha that Ethelbert admitted to Kent the religion of his Christian wife, 
and made possible the evangelization of the English people. A similar influence Clotilda had 
over Clovis, the first Christian king of the Franks, who, in the midst of battle, called upon 
Clotilda’s God, and, winning the battle, became a convert to Christianity, and aided the bar¬ 
barism of the Franks to yield to the refining, civilizing influences of the Gospel. What a 
contrast appears when the student turns to a consideration of the influence of Messalina over 
Emperor Claudius; Lady Macbeth over her husband, the Thane of Cawdor; of Jezebel over 
Ahab; and of Athaliah over Joram! The murder of Joram’s brothers was instigated by 
Athaliah, whose ambition was more ungovernable and cruel than a Jezebel’s or a Lady 
Macbeth’s. 

The long and happy era of international peace which Judah had enjoyed through the 
closing years of Jehoshaphat’s reign came to a sudden end when the idolatrous Joram had 
finally seated himself upon the throne. Wars broke out in which it was soon demonstrated that 


578 



ENTRANCE TO NARLOUS. 










580 


JORAM, AHAZIAH, AND JEHOASH. 


the surrounding nations had no longer to stand in awe of the power of a Jehoshaphat or fear 
the arms of Judah. The Edomites were emboldened by their very contempt of Joram to strike 
for their independence, which they successfully achieved. The idolatry and wickedness of this 
king called forth a remarkable letter from Elijah, who, though a prophet to Israel rather than 
to Judah, felt himself called upon to rebuke the sins of Joram as he had warned and repri¬ 
manded Ahab. The stern, uncompromising Tishbite forewarned the profligate and idolatrous 
king of the plague which was to destroy his wives and children and bring him to a most 
horrible death. Deaf to the voice of God, Joram continued in his corrupt career until one 
distress followed another in quick succession — rebellion, invasion, the ravages of Philistines 
and Arabians, the captivity of his wives and children and the destruction of his entire house, 
with the single exception of Ahaziah. This unhappy heir of a polluted throne, Ahaziah, 
reigned but one year, when, on his visit to Jehoram, the king of Israel, he was slain in the 
conflict which ended Jehoram’s reign and vested the imperial power of Israel in Jehu. The 
death of Ahaziah brought his mother Athaliah once more into prominence, and her ambition 
became more than ever notorious, unpatriotic, and vicious. She inhumanly grasped political 
power by the butchery of her own kindred, putting out of the way every obstacle to sover¬ 
eign authority by killing all that remained of the house of Joram. One only person escaped 
her cruel purposes — that was her little grandson Jehoash, whom she had tried to kill, but 
who was saved through the instrumentality of his aunt Jehosheba. For six years the boy 
was hid in the temple. When, at the age of seven, Jehoash was proclaimed king, Athaliah, 
who called the young ruler’s pretentions treason, was put to death. A child was now on 
Judah’s throne, but he had been educated from infancy by the righteous priest Jehoiada, who 
came to be the power behind the throne. A reaction set in against the idolatry which Joram, 
Ahaziah, and Athaliah had revived. The temples of Baal were torn down, the house of the 
Lord was repaired, and the worship of the fathers was restored. The idolatrous tendency of the 
nation, however, was soon manifest; the revolution inaugurated by the boy-king was only 
temporary and superficial. On the death of the good priest Jehoiada, who had been the real 
reformer while the king had been but an instrument in his hands, the influence which sur¬ 
rounded Jehoash proved him to be most fickle and irresolute, without a mind or a policy of his 
own. The strong undercurrent of idolatrous tendency soon became the uppermost current and 
swept the king along into the very maelstrom from which it had been vainly hoped he would 
save the nation. It seems almost incredible that this king, brought up in the very temple and 
educated for the throne by the godly Jehoiada, should live to see the son of that faithful priest 
stoned to death for teaching, as his father had done before him, the pure and holy religion of 
Jehovah. Nay, the king himself ordered that Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, should be thus 
cruelly requited for his faithful and fearless warnings. The calamities which were predicted 
by the martyr-priest, as he lay dying in the court of the house of the Lord, were speedily 
visited upon Judah and her king. Twice did the Syrians come up against the kingdom of 
Judah. In the first instance they were led by the fierce Hazael, who exacted enormous tribute 
as the price of sparing Jerusalem. In the second instance the forces of Jehoash were over¬ 
whelmed; his princes and courtiers were slain, and Jerusalem was sacked. The king, who 
began his reign as a reformer, then fell from his high eminence into idolatry with its attendant 
vices, became the ungrateful, cruel murderer of the good priest Zechariah, and finally ended his 
career in humiliation and disgrace at the feet of his Syrian conquerors and as the victim of 
assassination. Not on the field of battle, defending his country and the faith of his fathers, was 
he permitted gloriously and patriotically to die, but while he slept in his bed he was murdered 
by his servants. 

Amaziah, the son of Jehoash, came to power with a military talent which was hardly 
commensurate with his ambition. After having visited punishment upon the assassins of his 


EDOM CONQUERED—JUDAH CHALLENGES ISRAEL. 


581 


father lie proceeded against the Edomites and Amalekites with an army of 300,000 young men, 
the glory of Judah and Benjamin. He sought in this enterprise the assistance of Israel. For 
the specified amount of 100 talents of silver he secured 100,000 allies. Here, however, was 
shown the regard which was still paid to the prophetic office. Amaziah had begun his reign in 
the spirit of a reformer, giving hopes of an anti-idolatrous administration. He was, accord¬ 
ingly, respectful to the prophets, weighed well their advice, and profited by their instruction. 
When, therefore, this alliance was formed with the still more idolatrous kingdom of Israel 
in the expedition against the Edomites, the prophet protested and warned Amaziah of evil 
consequences. The king took warning, and although he had paid over the stipulated price 
of 100 talents he dismissed the 100,000 Israelitish soldiers, in obedience to what he regarded as 
the command of God, and went forth in the favor of the Lord to conquer his enemies and enrich 
his empire with the spoils of war. But now a remarkable spectacle is presented to the student 
of those changeable times and fickle peoples. After having overcome the military power of the 
Edomites, the king of Judah is himself overcome by the idolatry of the conquered nation, and 
the humiliating spectacle is witnessed of Amaziah’s bowing down before the idols of Edom. 
This is not unparalleled in history; other instances may be cited wherein the conquerors have 
accepted the religion of their conquered enemies. A conspicuous instance was the conversion of 
the Goths and Vandals by the Christian Greeks and Homans whom they had subjugated. 
This, however, can hardly be cited as a parallel case to that of Amaziah’s perversion to Edomite 
idolatry. What an opportunity that king had for teaching the conquered nation the pure and 
spiritual religion of Jehovah! How thoroughly permeated with the spirit of idolatry he must 
have been when, though repudiating the idolatry which was cursing his own land, he accepted 
the superstition of a less enlightened people! It seemed to be in the blood of the people — an 
hereditary tendency to idolatry which had come from a long and persistent disregard of the 
very laws and revelations of which they were the divinely appointed custodians. The virus of 
idolatry was poisoning the life-blood of the whole body politic, and the nation, in her rulers and 
people, was losing God and power. 

The conquest of Edom emboldened Amaziah to attempt a more ambitious enterprise — 
nothing less than the invasion of the northern kingdom, the subjugation of Israel, and the 
reunion of the dismembered empire on the ancient political if not theocratic foundation of the 
Davidic nationalism. This was not an unworthy ambition, save in the methods proposed. 
That, however, was not a time of international amity, nor had diplomacy come to be one of the 
fine arts. International questions, in those rough and bloody days, were settled at the point 
of the sword; might made right. Amaziah proposed no diplomatic palaver, no congress of 
statesmen and prophets, to discuss the restoration of a united empire. He boldly and self- 
confidently sent a challenge to Jelioash, the king of Israel, to meet him face to face in battle 

_that is to say, army to army, and nation to nation. It was a challenge to international duel. 

He threw down the gage of battle with an insolence and a braggadocio quite unbecoming either 
a soldier or a king. He must have been startled by the proud and courageous reply of Jehoash. 
That king was not to be trifled with, for with all his faults he was no coward that he should 
tremble before the noisy threats of a braggart. The reply which the king of Israel made to the 
challenge of Amaziah was significant, not to say picturesque. It was certainly a very pointed 
bit of military rhetoric, reminding us of the pictorial correspondence carried on between Alex¬ 
ander the Great of Macedon and Darius the Persian. When Alexander scornfully refused to 
pay Darius III., surnamed Codomannus, a tribute of 1,000 golden eggs, the Persian sent him 
a bat and ball, to ridicule his youth, and a bag of seeds, to warn him of the numbers of the 
Persian army. Alexander replied: “ With this bat will I strike the ball of your king’s domin¬ 
ions,” and, giving the seed to a fowl, “ Thus will I devour his army.” He also returned to 
Darius a wild melon whose bitterness was emblematic of the woe and sorrow they should be 


582 


DEFEAT AND DEATH OF AMAZIAH. 


forced to endure. When Darius Hystaspes invaded Scythia and demanded earth and water 
in token of submission, the Scythians promptly and defiantly replied by sending to him, by 
messenger, a bird, a mouse, a frog, and a bundle of arrows, which meant: “ Fly into the air 
like birds, hide in the ground like mice, dive into the water like frogs, or our arrows will 
pierce you.” When Amaziah sent the challenge to Jehoash of Israel: “Come, let us look 
one another in the face,” Jehoash returned the significant answer: “ The thistle that was in 
Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: 
and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle.” If we 
consider this a reply to Amaziah’s proposition for the union of the kingdoms, backed by the 
threat of force and war, it evidently means that the king of Israel looked upon himself as the 
majestic cedar and upon his kingdom as the daughter of the cedar, while he regarded Amaziah 
as the contemptible thistle or brier, and the kingdom of Judah as the son of the thistle. The 
wild beast rushing through Lebanon meant war in its ravages, and if war came it would tread 
down the thistle, it would crush Amaziah. Jehoash acts a very manly part in warning the 
king of Judah to curb his ambition and be content with his conquest of Edom, but the hot¬ 
headed Amaziah spurns advice and at Beth-shemesh reaps the bitter consequences in an over¬ 
whelming defeat and the complete rout of his army. He was himself made a prisoner and led 
a disgraced and humiliated captive to his own capital, which was plundered by the victorious 
army of Israel. That sad story, so often repeated, is told once more of how the walls of Jeru¬ 
salem were broken down, the very temple was despoiled of its silver, and gold, and sacred 
vessels, the treasury of the king’s house was looted, while hostages were taken away into 
Samaria. Thus was the “thistle of Lebanon” trodden down by the “wild beast”—Amaziah 
and his kingdom crushed and laid waste by war! 

The record of the conspiracy which was hatched against Amaziah becomes interesting at 
this time from the fact that archaeology is bringing to sight the ruins of the long-hidden 
Lachish to which Amaziah fled, where he was assassinated, and whence they brought him on 
horses to be buried in Jerusalem with his fathers. This Lachish was an ancient city which 
Joshua besieged and captured in his time, fully 700 years before the days of Amaziah. Reho- 
boam evidently rebuilt or restored and fortified it, but it afterward fell into the hands of the 
Assyrians. The last mention made of it was not later than the time of Jeremiah, fully 2,500 
years ago. But to-day the spade of the archaeologist is bringing the ruins of this ancient city to 
light and verifying in a measure the Word of God by proving that Lachish had an existence in 
harmony with the Hebrew records. Sixteen miles east of Gaza and twenty-three miles west of 
Hebron stands Tel-el-Hesy, a mound which the explorer has proven to be a mound of many 
cities. The ruins of one city rise above another, until eight separate and distinct cities are 
identified, the first of which was founded 500 years before the children of Israel conquered and 
occupied the land. Each city has left the evidences of its character to be interpreted by this 
age. The implements of war and industry in stone, bronze, and iron; the pottery, statuary, 
idols, tablets, cylinders, and scarabs speak of their Amorite, Phoenician, Egyptian, or Greek 
origin. As the excavations progress, more and more evidence appears in support of the position 
taken by Dr. Petrie that this is the site of ancient Lachish, which, during the many centuries 
of its existence, passed through all the changes which the influences of various civilizations 
wrought in its character. Here it was that Amaziah sought asylum from the conspirators, and 
here he was slain. Possibly the further explorations of this Tel may bring to light records of 
Jewish import to confirm still more positively the history preserved in the Holy Scriptures. 

Isaiah’s biography of Uzziah has been lost, else might we have a complete and satisfactory 
history of the next reign, which was distinguished for its brilliancy. It would not be claiming 
too much for Uzziah, the son and successor of Amaziah, to say he brought to the throne extraor¬ 
dinary powers of mind, if not true genius. Nor was his virtue inferior to his intelligence. 


REIGN OF UZZIAH — HIS SACRILEGE PUNISHED. 


583 


Although but sixteen years old when he assumed the crown, he immediately won the favor of 
the Lord and the good will of the people who had called him to the throne. He devoted 
himself to the much-needed internal improvements of the kingdom, and proved himself the 
friend and benefactor of the husbandmen who reared the flocks and tilled the soil. He was a 
lover of husbandry, and doubtless understood that a nation’s wealth and prosperity must come 
from the soil by the noble science and art of agriculture. Like Cincinnatus of the old Roman 
days, Uzziah appreciated both the delights and profits of agricultural pursuits, and rejoiced in 
his own thrifty vineyards. He was in no wise unfitted for the high position of political 
sovereignty by the love he had for the farm. Among the internal improvements which Uzziah 
inaugurated were wells dug in the wilderness and towers built for the defense of flocks which 
suffered from the attacks of wild beasts and robbers. The walls of Jerusalem were repaired; 
cities were fortified, and while all the arts of peace were revived and the wealth-producing 
farmers, and cattle-raisers, and wool-growers were given every advantage for prosperity that 
Uzziah’s truly economic genius could devise, at the same time the possibilities of war were kept 
in view, and the invasion of hostile nations was carefully provided against. The king raised a 
magnificent army and thoroughly equipped his soldiers for aggressive and defensive war. Here 
Uzziah displayed an inventive no less than an economic and military genius. It would seem 
that Uzziah was the inventor of the first machinery for attacking and defending fortified and 
walled cities. Although it is claimed by some writers that the catapult, an engine for throwing 
great stones, was the invention of Dionysius of Syracuse, in 399 B. C., and the battering-ram 
for demolishing walls and fortifications was invented by Artemon, a Greek, and first employed 
by Pericles, in 441 B. C., it would seem from more reliable data that these siege engines were 
invented by Uzziah 400 years earlier, and were adopted by the nations generally, with improve¬ 
ments. As these engines are not mentioned by Homer in his description of the siege of Troy, 
they were evidently unknown among the Greeks in the poet’s time. With the smaller imple¬ 
ments of war, such as spears, helmets, slings, shields, and bows, which the king furnished, 
mention is made for the first time in history of an engine for shooting arrows and hurling great 
stones from the walls of Jerusalem. Then the significant record that in his war against the 
Philistines he broke down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, 
would clearly indicate that one of the military engines of his invention must have been the 
battering-ram. 

The Edomites, Arabs, Philistines, and Ammonites were all made to feel the power of 
Judah’s arms, and Egypt stood in wholesome awe of the name of Uzziah—a name which must 
ever shine with brilliant distinction on the same scroll of fame with the names of Solomon and 
Jehoshaphat. That this king should spend his last days in misery must be the regret of all 
who have admired his patriotism, talent, and devotion. In the beginning, as a lad of sixteen, 
he sought God and, by the record, so long as he sought the Lord he prospered. What a light 
such words throw upon that national history to give us the true philosophy of it! Was it not 
ever so ? While the people were true to the law of righteousness, faithful to the religion of 
their fathers and the worship of Jehovah, the nation prospered both in peace and war. Their 
calamities and misfortunes followed their apostasy. As they offended God and transgressed the 
laws of pure religion, they sank into vices which enervated and impoverished them and made 
them the easy prey of invaders and ambitious conquerors. In the pride and exaltation of his 
success and prosperity, Uzziah presumptuously, if not sacrilegiously, assumed to exercise the 
functions of the priestly office, and boldly entered the temple to burn the incense upon the 
altar. Rebuked though he was by Azariah, the chief priest, and violently resisted by four¬ 
score priests, the king angrily persisted in his act of trespass upon the sanctuary. As he raised 
the censer to burn incense he was smitten with leprosy. To the dismay of all, that dreadful 
white spot appeared in his forehead. This king, who had accomplished so much for Judah by 


584 


JUDAH PASSES UNDER THE ASSYRIAN YOKE. 


his piety, intelligence, military and inventive genius, and by his loyalty to all the interests of 
the people and of the nation, spent his last days in the leper hospital, separated from the world. 
The administration of state affairs passed to his son Jotham, whose regency gave such satisfac¬ 
tion that the people were warranted in crowning him king on the death of his illustrious father, 
Uzziah. 

Jotham carried out the same policy which had made his regency acceptable to the people, 
and seemed animated with the progressive spirit of his father. He continued the internal 
improvement of the kingdom, constructed towers and castles in the forests, built cities in the 
mountains, fortified Jerusalem, and built the high gate of the temple. He maintained the mili¬ 
tary strength of the kingdom and secured vast tribute from the Ammonites. At the close of 
his rather prosperous reign of sixteen years, his kingdom was invaded by the allied forces 
of Syria and Israel under the leadership of Rezin and Pekah. This conflict, however, did not 
reach a serious form while Jotham lived; he bequeathed it to his successor, Ahaz, who proved 
quite incompetent to carry it to a successful issue. In his sore distress, as we have found, Ahaz 
formed an alliance with Tiglath-Pileser, and then met the united forces of Syria and Israel with 
the allied armies of Assyria and Judah. Ahaz proved himself fully as able to form alliances 
with foreign powers as Pekah of Israel, and he met the invaders with the overwhelming might 
of Tiglath-Pileser’s Assyrian hosts. While Israel never recovered from this thunderbolt which 
Ahaz hurled upon her, though she invited it by her own ambitious design to subvert the 
southern kingdom, the alliance which Ahaz formed with Assyria proved a most disastrous one 
for Judah, since the price which Ahaz paid for the assistance of Tiglath-Pileser was no less than 
Judah’s humiliating submission to the Assyrian yoke. The religious deficiencies of Ahaz were 
as marked as his lack of political sagacity. The policy of internal improvement pursued by his 
father and grandfather was not adopted by Ahaz, and his abominable idolatry stands out in 
marked contrast with the piety of his immediate predecessors. He closed the temple; instituted 
new idolatries; turned to the service of his enemies’ gods, and introduced the Syrian forms of 
worship. When the temple was opened, behold! it had been transformed into a temple of 
idolatry. So far did the king in his religious perversion go, that he offered his own son as 
a burnt sacrifice according to the inhuman rites of the most degraded heathenism. 



ESTHER. 










CHAPTER XI. 

SENNACHERIB AND THE ASSYRIANS. 


THE night seems to be rapidly closing in upon Judah, and the dread power which is to 
J- overwhelm both the northern and southern kingdoms has already secured a foothold, 
has struck Israel the first blow, and placed upon Judah the galling yoke of that complete 
conquest and subjugation which idolatry has unfitted them to resist. A gleam of light breaks 
fitfully through the gathering storm-clouds in the virtue of Hezekiah and the righteousness of 
his reign. He had inherited a demoralized kingdom, but not a demoralized nature, from his 
father. Now and then the good blood will come to the surface in spite of or in harmony with 
the so-called law of moral heredity. It is a remarkable fact, however, that one can never 
predicate a king’s character on his father’s record, whether it be bad or good. The good 
Jotham’s son is the wicked Ahaz, and the wicked Aliaz’s son is the righteous Hezekiah. Now 
and then the flickering, dying light of this Hebrew genius would leap up as with renewed life. 
The gathering clouds would at times brighten as by the flashes of lightning before the breaking 
of the storm in greater fury and the sinking of the nation into denser night and more hopeless 
chaos. Hezekiah did what he could to stay the tottering empire and turn the people to higher 
paths of national life. He not only reopened the temple and revived Jehovah-worship with 
the rites and ceremonies of the house of the Lord, but he began and prosecuted a relentless 
crusade against the idolatry which had been favored by his father, Ahaz. He adopted a 
different political or international policy from that by which Ahaz had humiliated Judah at the 
feet of Assyria. He resisted the Assyrian yoke and tried to establish that independence of his 
country which had been bartered to Assyria for the cooperation of Tiglath-Pileser against Syria 
and Israel. Hezekiah proved himself a true political and religious reformer. But, like all 
reformers of the genuine sort, he was opposed, and had to stand up against a world. His 
measures were resisted by many of his own idolatrous people and by Judah’s Assyrian masters. 
There were not wanting those who scoffed at the revival of the temple services and the historic 
old feasts of the Levitical system. Then the cessation of tribute to Assyria meant the 
beginning of war. Nearly all the Palestinian powers had thrown off the yoke of Assyria, but 
the conqueror was not tardy in hastening into the land with sufficient force to subdue scores of 
rebellious vassals. Sennacherib invaded Palestine with a formidable host, swept down the 
western shore and captured city after city; bringing Sidon, Tyre, Ekron, Joppa, Askelon, 
Timnath, and Ashdod to terms, capturing forty-six fortified cities of Judah and marching upon 
Jerusalem. The price of peace was 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold. So depleted 
was Judah’s treasury that Hezekiah could not meet the demand of the Assyrian without 
robbing the temple of its golden ornaments. Sennacherib saw to what extremities the kingdom 
was reduced, and in his ambition dreamed that the time was ripe for a bold stroke of complete 
conquest and spoliation. He, therefore, immediately demanded the unconditional surrender of 
Jerusalem. The Assyrian had established himself before Lachish, as the monuments represent 
him, to prosecute the siege of that city, and from that place sent the messengers Tartan, 
Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh to demand the surrender of Jerusalem. These messengers were met 
by Hezekiah’s representatives, Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah. In the parley Rabshakeh was 
spokesman for the Assyrians, and Eliakim for the Jews. The Assyrians insulted the Jews and 
tried to incite them to treason to their God, their king, and their country. Rabshakeh, trans¬ 
cending the limits of diplomatic courtesy, harangued the people as they gathered on the walls 
of the city, advising them to yield to the king of Assyria. Eliakim hastened to King Hezekiah 

585 


586 


THE ARMY OF SENNACHERIB DESTROYED. 


with the results of the unsatisfactory parley. With the all-conquering Assyrian thundering at 
the gates of the city, Hezekiah turned to the prophet of God and requested Isaiah to call upon 
the Lord for deliverance. Isaiah’s words were like a trumpet peal of victory to the ears of the 
disheartened king. A defiant answer was sent to Sennacherib. The doom of the Assyrian 
army was predicted. The Lord would send a “ blast ” against them. In the meantime Sen¬ 
nacherib had raised the siege of Lachish and pitched against Libnah. When the messengers 
returned and the intelligence came that the king of Ethiopia was marching against the 
Assyrians to the assistance of the Jews, Sennacherib dispatched messengers again to Jerusalem 
with a letter containing his ultimatum. Hezekiah went into the temple and spread this letter 
before the Lord in earnest prayer. Isaiah then broke forth in sublime strains of poetic 
prophecy which reached a climax in the assuring language: 

“ Therefore thus saith the Eternal in regard to the king of Assyria : 

He shall not come against this city, 

Nor shoot an arrow there, 

Nor assault it with shield, 

Nor throw up a siege wall against it. 

By the way by which he came he shall x-eturn ; 

And he shall not come against this city, is the decree of the Eternal ; 

But I will protect this city to save it, 

For mine own sake and for the sake of David, my servant.”' 

That night saw the destruction of the proud army of Assyria. Isaiah had strengthened 
Hezekiah’s heart with the assurance that the Lord would send a “blast” against the enemy so 
that not an arrow should smite the city. Byron has put into verse the fulfillment of Isaiah’s 
prophecy : 

“The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold, 

And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold; 

And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea, 

When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee. 

Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, 

That host with their banners at sunset were seen : 

Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, 

That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. 

For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, 

And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed ! 

And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, 

And their hearts but once heaved, and forever gi'ew still ! 

*********** 

And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail, 

And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal ; 

And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword, 

Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord ! ” 

The angel or messenger of death came in the form of a pestilential blast, the destructive 
simoom, in which 185,000 Assyrians perished. If there were any disposition to eliminate the 
supernatural from this event, certainly the natural destruction of the Assyrian army need 
present to the student no serious difficulty. Victor Hugo attributes the defeat of Napoleon at 
Waterloo to a few drops of rain, more or less, which in the early morning made the roads unfit 
for the movement of artillery. In other words, lie claimed that providence defeated the “ man 
of destiny.” It was certainly the severity of the Russian blasts that made Napoleon’s march on 
Moscow disastrous and so decimated his army that he never recovered his pristine strength. 





FORTRESS OF IBRIM, NUBIA. 



















588 


HEZEK1AH PAYS TRIBUTE TO ASSYRIA. 


When Cambyses III., the son and successor of Cyrus the Great, invaded and conquered Egypt, 
he sent an army to destroy the Temple of Ammon at Siwah, but it was overtaken by the deadly 
simoom and perished in the desert. Sennacherib’s army was in the region which was often 
swept by this destructive storm, and it was doubtless overwhelmed by the “ blast ” which was 
figuratively an angel of death, a messenger of the Lord, and in reality, a visitation of divine 
providence. The record of this disaster was not inscribed on Assyrian monuments. Sennach¬ 
erib gives a very full and detailed account of his invasion on the monuments, which may still 
be deciphered. He mentions the cities captured on this expedition and gives the names of the 
kings and kingdoms resubjugated which had broken from Assyrian control since Sargon and 
Tiglath-Pileser’s conquests. He represents Hezekiah as imprisoned in Jerusalem like a bird in 
a cage, and gives an account of the siege of Jerusalem with the enormous treasure which he 
carried away to Nineveh, but nothing is recorded of the “ blast ” which smote his army with 
death. The only historical reference to the calamity which befell the Assyrian army that has 
been found in profane records is the doubtful tradition preserved in Herodotus. The Greek 
historian relates a story told him by the Egyptian priest to the effect that Sennacherib, king of 
the Arabians and Assyrians, marched a large army against Egypt, when the priest in power, 
forsaken by his own people, entered the temple and supplicated the favor of the god he wor¬ 
shiped. While there, he fell asleep and his god appeared to him in a vision, encouraging him 
and assuring him that he need not fear the invaders, as help would come to him at the proper 
time. Trusting this vision, the priest-ruler gathered as many followers from among the trades¬ 
men and mechanics as would rally to his standard and took up his position at Pelusium, the 
entrance to Egypt. When they encamped there a multitude of field mice, pouring in upon the 
Assyrians, gnawed their bows and quivers and the handles of their shields so that they were 
without arms and armor, and when the next day dawned they fled and many of them were 
destroyed. It is very difficult to make this tradition harmonize with the Jewish record of the 
destruction of Sennacherib’s army, although the modifications in the Egyptian story may be due 
to the mixing up of two records, each colored by national religious sentiments. 

Hezekiah evidently treated with Sennacherib by paying him his demand in treasure. 
This doubtless satisfied the Assyrian and justified him in his monumental boast, while the 
record of the disaster which subsequently befell his army was suppressed and never inscribed 
on the monuments for the information of future ages. The Assyrian project failed in so far as 
it was an attempt to capture Jerusalem and subjugate the Jews. Sennacherib had demanded an 
unconditional surrender, but for some very sufficient reason — the simoom, if no other — he did 
not succeed in his ambitious enterprise. 

The failure of Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem redounded to the glory of Hezekiah and 
of Isaiah the prophet, who were held in the highest esteem by the people whom they had saved 
from national humiliation and delivered from Assyrian bondage. Prosperity immediately 
followed the withdrawal of the invaders. That fact with the other, that Hezekiah’s renown 
increased, would seem to prove that while Sennacherib may have told the truth on his monu¬ 
ment, and nothing but the truth, he did not tell the whole truth. Evidently he had not spoiled 
Jerusalem so completely as his inscriptions would lead us to believe, nor did he succeed in 
catching his bird after he had shut him up in the cage. The general enterprise of this great 
Assyrian, however, was successful and came to a climax in the capture of Libnali and, possibly, 
of Lacliish. One of the most impressive monuments of those events represents Sennacherib 
seated on his throne with attendants, a bow in one hand and arrows in the other, while the 
rulers of cities and nations subjugated are appearing before him to sue for peace and to submit 
to his authority. By an inscription we are informed this monument represents Sennacherib 
seated before Lachish prosecuting its siege. The Assyrian returned to Nineveh, well satisfied 
with his enterprise of conquest and with the riches he was able to pour into the national 


THE GLORY AND DEATH OF SENNACHERIB: 


589 


treasury. He made no further attempt to subjugate the Jews, although his record of conquest 
does not end with this successful expedition to Palestine. After a splendid, if not incomparable, 
career of twenty years more in conquest and rule, Sennacherib was ignominiously assassinated. 
His own 

“ Sons 

Smote him between the altar stones.” 

This was a sad and humiliating close of a most illustrious life. For the student of national 
developments in their political, military, and intellectual phases, the name of Sennacherib must 
ever have a charm. Not only as one of the conquerors of antiquity, a general of true military 
genius and of proud exploits, but also as the man who established the supremacy of Assyria, 
made Nineveh magnificent with palaces and the center of the political, if not the intellectual, 
world, must Sennacherib ever hold his exalted position in history. There was, perhaps, without 
their knowing it themselves, great similarity of mind and taste between Hezekiah and Sennach¬ 
erib ; they were both men of culture and learning. Jehoshaphat may have been more nearly 
the intellectual like of the Assyrian than was Hezekiah. One of the most noteworthy discov¬ 
eries made by archaeology has been the royal library of Sennacherib at Kuyunjik. Layard 
here brought to light the ruins of splendid palaces which had been built by Sennacherib and 
his grandson Assurbanipal. Here were found the books of the Assyrians—imperishable books, 
10,000 volumes or more, inscribed clay tablets — still in a remarkable state of preservation. 
Many of these books from the royal library of Sennacherib may now be seen and read in the 
British Museum. More than all monumental records of battles and conquests, more than all 
the evidences of wealth, material magnificence, and imperial power that remain to speak of 
Sennacherib, these books and this library of the royal palace of Kuyunjik reveal the character 
and true greatness of the Assyrian king. Here is the literature of Assyrian science, religion, 
and history. Here are their poetry, their mathematics, astronomy, astrology, and theology; the 
evidences of the enlightenment of a ruler who knew the value of literature and education, art 
and science, ethics and song, ages before Augustus and his golden age, and centuries before the 
brilliant Athens of Pericles. No monarch of antiquity, however magnificent his reign, has left 
a monument which speaks to this age with nobler significance of true greatness than the royal 
library which Sennacherib left on the banks of the Tigris. 

While this powerful king did not again harass the Jews, the Assyrian power which he did 
so much to augment was only awaiting the day of its great opportunity when it should strike 
the tottering kingdom of David a crushing blow and sweep this enervated, degenerate people 
into bondage more humiliating and galling, if not more servile, than the Egyptian bondage 
from which Moses, by God’s providence, had led their ancestors. 

The prosperity of Hezekiah, his flourishing vineyards, bursting granaries, multiplying 
flocks, increasing wealth, honor, and power were not unaccompanied by affliction. But when 
disease came upon him he sought the prophet’s aid, as in the day of Sennacherib’s invasion. 
Isaiah, true to his king, his country, and his God, prays for and is promised Hezekiah’s 
recovery. So surely as the shadow went backward on the sundial of Aliaz, he will be raised 
to health. God spared the good king’s life in answer to prayer. That the turning back of the 
shadow on the sundial was a miracle need not be insisted upon. That was a natural, meteoro¬ 
logical possibility, calling for no divine interference with the laws of light or the principles of 
astronomy. As the rainbow became the emblem of God’s pledge that the world should never 
ao-ain be destroyed by flood, so was this meteorological incident made an emblem of God’s 
promise to restore the king. It were natural to suppose that now the king and Isaiah would 
be on most intimate and friendly terms with each other. Surely the good prophet had been the 
very prop and stay of the throne, and in the darkest hour of national peril Hezekiah had 
leaned upon him as the embodiment of the divine truth — the very messenger of God. But at 


590 


THE CRIMES AND CAPTIVITY OF MANASSEH. 


no time did Isaiah’s light shine out in the darkness more clearly and steadfastly than when it 
was necessary for him to rebuke the king who had so often solicited his counsel. When Heze- 
kiah was carried away by his prosperity and began to boast of his riches and to parade his great 
treasures before the wondering eyes of the Babylonian ambassadors, the faithful prophet 
steadied the king, and kept him from stepping over the brink in his dizzy pride by some very 
timely and wholesome warning which contained the sad prediction that the very power which 
these ambassadors represented would some day despoil the kingdom of these and all its riches. 
The Babylonian power whose alliance he sought, and whose confidence he would gain by a 
display of his treasures, would some day break the alliance and become an ambitious and all- 
powerful enemy. That awful day of reckoning was not far distant. The gleam of light which 
broke through the impending gloom, and made the reign of Hezekiah almost illustrious, was 
soon to be followed by the deepest darkness that had ever settled on this rapidly declining 
nation. 

Manasseh in no particular resembles his illustrious father, Hezekiah. He does not seem to 
have inherited a single virtue of his father. Coming to the throne a mere boy, he was both the 
pupil and the tool of that element in the government which had persistently antagonized all 
reformation, laughed at the revival of the theocratic ritual, and kept alive in the hearts of the 
people the mad fire of sensual idolatry, which was burning and devouring the nation’s chastity, 
virtue, and strength. Long as was this reign of fifty-five years, the Jewish historians have 
been loath to record the events which made it one of the most corrupt and vicious that blots and 
stains any national history. So despicable was the character of Manasseh that his name is 
seldom mentioned in Jewish literature. He was the Nero of Judah’s kings. Not only did 
a reaction from Hezekiah’s theocratic policy set in, but a persecution began which all the cruel¬ 
ties of Smithfield fires, all the horrors of St. Bartholomew’s day, all the pagan savagery 
of Nero’s and Diocletian’s dungeons and wild beasts’ dens, cannot by comparison diminish 
or eclipse in enormity. Doubtless Isaiah fell with the martyrs in this dark and depraved reign 
when the streets of Jerusalem ran with innocent blood. The idolatries which Hezekiah had 
overthrown Manasseh reestablished. He also added to the other abominations, witchcraft, 
sorcery, fire-worship, and the adoration of the heavenly bodies. The extreme to which this 
monster carried the vilest and most sensual idolatries far exceeded any ever before attempted by 
his idolatrous predecessors. He went so far as to turn the house of the Lord into a temple of 
idols, polluting the sacred place with the indecent images of Astarte and placing Baal and 
Astarte in possession of Jehovah’s sanctuary. To give more emphatic approval of the Ammon- 
itish worship of Moloch, this depraved king caused the fires to be rekindled in the vale 
of Hinnom and made his own sons pass through the flames. There was not a form of idolatry 
practiced by the surrounding nations that was not only tolerated but established and propagated 
in Jerusalem to the exclusion of Jehovah-worship. This alone seemed to be prohibited. The 
insane bigotry of idolatry broke forth in most cruel persecution, which swept away not only the 
faithful few of the common people but destroyed the most intellectual classes, the priests and 
prophets, poets and authors who were true to the old theocratic system. 

Loath as Jewish prophets and historians have been to pollute their pages with any mention 
of Manasseh, that name appears on the Assyrian monuments, in the record of Esar-haddon’s 
conquests. According to that stone record, Manasseh was overthrown, and according to the 
Jewish Scriptures, Manasseh was captured and led a prisoner to Babylon by the generals of 
Esar-haddon. Found hiding like a shrinking coward in the hedge, rather than facing the 
enemy like a brave man of royal dignity and patriotic spirit, he was led away to Babylon like 
a beast, with rings through his lips and chains upon his feet. While suffering the pains and 
humiliations of captivity, Manasseh repents of his idolatries, which he now sees have brought 
disgrace and disaster upon him and his kingdom. He returns by the providence of a forgiving 


ACCESSION OF JOSIAH—THE BURDEN OF PROPHECY 


591 


God, whose mercy he supplicates, and as the vassal of the Assyrian monarch continues on the 
throne of Judah. The few remaining years of his reign witness a reformation in which the 
repentant king tries to undo the idolatrous mischief of his earlier years. With all his well- 
meant endeavors to uproot idolatry and restore the ancient Jehovah-worship, it was difficult, 
if not impossible, to stem the tide to which he had early given such mad, impetuous fury. 
This may be seen in the fact that his son, Amon, followed in his footsteps of sin, idolatry, and 
wickedness, only to be assassinated by his own servants. Amon’s reign lasted hut two years. 


CHARTER XII. 

JOSIAH AND REFORM. 

T N Josiah we have again a remarkable study in heredity. His father and grandfather were 
-L base idolaters, but he occupies a place beside Hezekiah and Jehoshaphat as one of the few 
virtuous and godly kings of Judah, whose reign reflected honor alike upon himself and his 
kingdom. Amon, his father, was assassinated when Josiah was a lad but eight years old. In 
boyhood, however, Josiah displayed those virtuous traits of character which gave promise of a 
noble manhood and of a righteous reign. No king had come to Judah’s throne in more stirring 
times. The nations were being shaken to their foundations with the earthquake of universal 
revolution. Crowns were falling, thrones tottering, kingdoms rocking on their bases. All the 
powers of the earth were up in arms, each seeking the subjugation of the other, ambitious for 
universal empire. Egypt was assuming an insolent, haughty, and domineering attitude toward 
the north. Nineveh was declining and Babylon rising. Assyrian supremacy was giving way 
before the new, swift, ambitious power of Chaldea. The north was swarming with strange, 
wild, hardy Scythians, who came like the whirlwind to destroy the effete civilizations of the 
south. Poor Judah seemed a withered branch tossing on the wild billows of this political mael¬ 
strom, destined to be sucked into the vortex of destruction. Prophecies poured forth from the 
lips of the anointed seers against all these self-vaunting kingdoms. Not poor, dwindling, 
almost defunct Judah alone, but Egypt, Assyria and Chaldea were burdens of prophecy. 
Babylon and Nineveh, no less than Jerusalem, were warned of impending evil, punishments, 
providential chastisings, destructions, annihilations. 

The corruption of Manasseh’s fifty-five years’ reign and of Amon’s equally vicious reign, 
left Judah in the most depraved and hopeless condition to which it had ever sunken. Josiah, 
the boy-king, must have been looked upon as a helpless victim of most unfortunate circum¬ 
stances, doomed to greater humiliation and ignominy than his father or his detestable grand¬ 
father. Once more, however, and only once more, does light shine in the darkness. How 
patient has God been! How many opportunities has he given this people to repent and turn 
to him! How often has he tried to teach them the lesson that righteousness exalteth a nation, 
but sin is a reproach to any people! Every righteous ruler has been blessed with prosperity. 
Every reformation has been followed by manifestations of divine favor. In the abundance of 
their harvests, the success of their arms, the growth of their power, and the honor of their 
name among the nations, that people ever found that God blessed them in every new resolve 
and effort of theirs to turn from idolatry and renew their devotion to the theocratic system of 
which they had been made the peculiar custodians. Once more before the awful catastrophe of 
final ruin, God blesses with his favor the reign of a righteous king. 

Josiah was a reformer at the age of twelve. He soon entered upon a determined warfare 
against idolatry; tore down the images, destroyed the abominable groves; extinguished the 



592 


THE BOOK OF THE LAW DISCOVERED. 


Moloch fires; demolished the altars and temples by which the people had been corrupted with 
every form of unchaste and demoniacal idolatry, from the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth to 
fiery Moloch. Not content with issuing royal edicts for the suppression and absolute extirpation 
of idolatry, he gave personal supervision to the destruction of the idols, groves, and temples of 
false religions. This virtuous iconoclasm, this work of righteous destruction, was followed by a 
reformative construction, a restoration of Jehovah-worship with all the ancient symbols and 
ceremonies. At a great expense, and by the employment of large numbers of workmen, Josiah 
restored the temple which had been so long polluted with idolatry. Moreover, the wear and 
tear of over two hundred years’ service since it was repaired must have left the temple in a sad 
state of dilapidation. For the honor of God and of the nation, Josiah would have this treasure 
house of Jehovistic symbolisms become, by its renovation and beautified restoration, a figure of 
a regenerate nationalism, the emblem of the moral and religious transformation of the people. 
While the repairs of the temple were progressing, a most important discovery was made by 
Hilkiah the high priest. Rummaging in some obscure, neglected part of the historic old house, 
clearing out rooms and corners which had been receptacles for relics during the changes which 
had gone on, or ransacking what may have been the archives of the temple, Hilkiah came upon 
a document which created a sensation — nay, a revolution. It proved to be an old copy of the 
Law, doubtless the long-neglected Pentateuch. It had been relegated to the rubbish heap or 
laid aside like a worn-out garment for which the original owner had no further need. What a 
comment on the national character! There was revealed the philosophy of their decline. They 
had thrown their Magna Charta into the waste basket. They had relegated the very chart and 
compass of the ship of state to the ash bin. They had pronounced their theocratic constitution 
null and void and had pitched it into the corner of neglect, obscurity, and forgetfulness. Their 
subsequent history was the logical result of ignoring the Book of the Law. When the good 
priest brought out the dusty, moldy book, from its age-long obscurity, he hastened to send it to 
Josiah by Shaplian the scribe. The king’s agitation knew no bounds, for when portions of the 
book were read in his hearing he rent his clothes, and ordered an inquiry to be made of the 
Lord — that is, he commanded that a prophet be consulted. The book contained such threaten- 
ings against evil doers and violators of the law, and the nation had been so manifestly trampling 
the law under foot, and the punishments threatened in the book seemed so certainly impending, 
that the nation was in danger. It looked as though God were about to destroy them for their 
infidelity. The book must be interpreted. 

Evidently neither Jeremiah nor Zephaniah was residing in Jerusalem at that time. The 
committee, therefore, consisting of Hilkiah the priest, Shaplian the scribe, Aliikam, Achbor, 
and Asahiah, sought Huldah the prophetess. Out of obscurity God called a devoted woman 
into history. The only mission she had, so far as history reveals, was to shed light on this 
long-neglected constitution. It was a critical epoch. The hour of demand found her faithful; 
walking in the ways of God, living in the true spirit of prophecy; ready to teach the scribes, 
the priest, the king, the nation. A Jeremiah or an Isaiah could not have done better. She 
rises before us in the beauty of her virtue, the steadfastness of her faith, the luster of her 
intelligence, and the dignity of her prophetic character to prove, as Miriam, Deborah, and 
Hannah proved, that the poetic gift and the prophetic office could be as safely intrusted to 
women as to men. Since Miriam sounded the loud timbrels over Egypt’s dark sea, and 
Sappho’s singing charmed the isles of Greece, and our bright day listens to the sweet and lofty 
strains of Jean Ingelow and Elizabeth Barrett Browning, the world must recognize the divine 
gifts of woman. As teachers, too, women have distinguished themselves. Deborah was a 
judge of Israel; Aspasia was the teacher of Socrates and Pericles; Hortensia instructed Roman 
orators in eloquence; Hypatia adorned the presidency of the Platonic Academy, in Alexandria; 
Yittoria Colonna and Alessandra Scala were bright scholars of the Renaissance; Mary 


THE PENTATEUCH INTERPRETED —IDOLATRY EXTIRPATED. 


593 


Somerville was astonishingly proficient in science; Amelia B. Edwards was an accomplished 
Egyptologist; Elizabeth Carter, like Lady Jane Grey, was a linguistic genius; George Eliot, 
Charlotte Bronte, and Jane Porter were queens in the realm of literary romance; and Rosa 
Bonheur, Harriet Hosmer, and Angelica Kauffman have made the world more beautiful with 
their art. Thus the intelligence, genius, and virtue of woman, against the prejudices of all 
history, have proved God to be no respecter of sex in the bestowment of his gifts of mind and 
graces of heart. How brightly does this star of Jewish womanhood shine in the gathering 
darkness of that far-off and unhappy time! Fearless, intelligent, and true to her high 
prophetic calling, Huldah interpreted the spirit of the new-found Book of Moses. It was a 
startling revelation to the messengers and to the king. The fulfillment of that divine word was 
assured. The prophetess courageously foretold the consequences of the nation’s infidelities and 
idolatries. The law must be fulfilled. In the divine logic of events, punishment will follow 
disobedience. The only ray of light that came to the comfort of Josiah was in the assurance 
that he should not live to witness the final catastrophe. His upright life and reign should, 
therefore, be rewarded; the nation’s doom should be averted until after his death. Little conso¬ 
lation came to so noble and patriotic a soul in the assurance that he should be spared the 
personal sorrow of witnessing his country’s fall. The inevitability of the nation’s ruin must 
have banished from his unselfish mind whatever comfort that single ray of light was sent to 
bestow. 

As if inspired with a purpose to prevent the inevitable, Josiah entered with fresh spirit 
upon the reformation of the kingdom. He summoned the nation to Jerusalem—all the elders, 
priests, prophets, and people of every rank and class. He read to them the new-found book, 
which had been a lamp to the feet and a light to the path of their virtuous and godly ancestors 
from the days of Moses down to the time of David, their typical king. The people were as 
profoundly moved as the king had been by the reading of this long-lost book, and with Josiah 
they stood up en masse and joined in a renewed covenant to obey the law of God and walk 
in the paths of their righteous fathers. The last relic of idolatry was uprooted. Astarte of 
the Zidonians, Chemosh of the Moabites, and Milcom of the Ammonites were destroyed, with 
all the paraphernalia of altars, images, groves, and temples by which the abominations were 
ceremonialized. 

In the restoration of the theocratic symbolism, the renovation of the temple, and the 
renewal of the old covenant, Josiah prepared for the celebration of the passover on a scale of 
grandeur not known since the kingdom was founded. He furnished the people with 30,000 
lambs and kids and 3,000 bullocks for the sacrifices. A most elaborate temple service was 
prepared. The grand old music of David and Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun was rehearsed, to 
fill again the house of the Lord with the praises due to his name. The smoke of the sacrifices 
ascended from the newly consecrated altars; the old temple echoed once more with the music 
of voice and instrument burdened with the holy pathos and triumph of the psalms. All Jeru¬ 
salem was ablaze with the splendors of the most important and solemn festival of the Jewish 
ceremonialism. Not since the days of Samuel had there been so grand and awe-inspiring an 
observance of the passover. 

With this religious reformation there came an era of peace and industrial revival—a short 
but welcome respite, in those troublous times, from civil strife and external conflict. There 
were tokens of a long reign of righteousness, as though God had repented of his wrath and 
would save the nation. Josiah, in his patriotic loyalty to his country and his religious devotion 
to the theocratic constitution, became the most blameless ruler and the most fearless and uncom¬ 
promising reformer in the history of the Jewish kingdom. Not only since the partition of the 
empire, but from the reign of David, 400 years before, no king of all the many who had sat 
on David’s throne made so determined and successful a warfare upon idolatry or so completely 


594 


JOSIAH ROUTED BY PHARAOH-NECHO. 


uprooted and destroyed the manifold abominations. But, alas! He could not save his country. 
Here, however, we come to one of the mysteries of that strange, eventful history. What might 
have been in store for the Jewish nation, had Josiah been content to pursue a policy of amity 
with the surrounding nations, or of non-interference with the international conflicts which were 
raging about him, it is impossible to say. What the motive was which prompted him to lead 
his insignificant forces against the regenerated power of ambitious Egypt, we know not. But 
when Pharaoh-Necho led his Egyptian hosts against Nineveh, or Babylon, for some inexpli¬ 
cable reason Josiah marched out the little army of Judah against him. The magnanimity of 
the great Egyptian was admirable. Not in haughtiness, nor in exasperating contempt did he 
greet the Jew, but with the generous spirit of a great soldier and a kingly king he assured 
him, in the gentlest, most courteous, and conciliatory terms that he was not bent on the conquest 
of Judah, but had a larger enterprise on hand than the overthrow of her little army. Deaf to 
the Pharaoh’s mild remonstrance, Josiah led his army against the Egyptian forces only to be 
dashed to pieces like the waves against Gibraltar. Josiah chose Megiddo, in the historic, battle- 
scarred plain of Jezreel, for his attack. Megiddo was a strategic military point between the 
seacoast and Jerusalem and North Palestine. Was Josiah dreaming of some such victory over 
the mighty hosts of Egypt as Barak there won over the hosts of Sisera, when the stars in their 
courses fought against Sisera ? Or had he in mind the glorious day when the Midianites were 
destroyed by the illustrious band which saw the triumph of the sword of the Lord and of 
Gideon? Had he, moreover, given too literal an interpretation to the old book which had been 
found in the temple, wherein the righteous were promised power to overcome the nations of the 
earth? Or was Josiah far-sighted enough to see that Egypt was bent on universal conquest 
and was ambitious for universal empire, and that the overthrow of his own kingdom had been 
reckoned upon ? Did he see that Egyptian domination in the north meant, sooner or later, the 
subjugation of his own country ? Or was Josiah at this time the vassal of the sovereign against 
whom the Pharaoh was leading his conquering arms, and was he in duty bound to aid that 
sovereign by harassing, crippling, and impeding the progress of the Egyptians, if he could not 
hope to defeat them? These are questions which cannot be satisfactorily answered. Just as 
difficult would it be to answer the question: Was it destiny ? was it in the purpose and by the 
providence of God that Josiah should do this seemingly rash, insane thing? Say what we will, 
this just and virtuous king died the death of a hero and a patriot on Megiddo’s fatal field. 

With Josiah fell Judah; with him sank in blood the sun of Davidic pride and power. In 
his death perished — but perished heroically and royally — the last royal patriot and righteous 
reformer who had sought to save his country, adorn the Jewish throne, and emancipate his race 
from the religious and political thraldom of alien and corrupting idolatries. As they bore 
Josiah from Megiddo, and the chariot hearse entered Jerusalem, the lamentations of the people 
knew no restraint. The last hope of the faithful had perished. The noble reformer had fallen, 
and fallen in the midst of his prosperity, with the favor of God resting on him. The long- 
threatened thunderbolt had leaped out of a cloudless sky, and from the zenith splendors of a 
new and better national day the country was suddenly plunged into night and chaos. “ God 
will not always chide, neither will he restrain his wrath forever.” The only redeeming feature 
of this sudden and irretrievable disaster is in the fulfillment of God’s promise, made to Josiah 
by Huldah the prophetess, that he should not look upon Judah’s final overthrow and have his 
patriotic heart rent by the humiliation, conquest, subjugation, and captivity of his people. God 
took him in the midst of battle; took him with all his valor on him; took him from the 
chariot of heroism and the field of honor: took him as he took Leonidas from Thermopylae and 
Gustavus Adolphus from Liitzen — not like the Swede, victorious, but like the Greek, over¬ 
thrown — yet as the one in triumph and the other in defeat: true, heroic, righteous, and 
patriotic to the last. Never before had the people so universally bewailed the death of a 


EGYPTIAN DOMINATION IN JUDAH. 


595 


king. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. Jeremiah broke forth into lamentations. 
The singing men and singing women continued an annual dirge in sorrowful commemoration of 
Ins death, while through all the subsequent history of the Jews his name was held in highest 
reverence as one of the brightest that adorned their national history. In after ages Jesus, the 
Son of Siiach, wrote : “ His memory is like costly incense, and sweet as honey to every mouth.” 
In his fall, may not the people say in mournful truth what Antony said over the stricken 
Caesar: 


“ O, what a fall was there, my countrymen ! 
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down. ” 


CHAPTER XIIL 

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S CONQUEST OF THE JEWS. 

H^HE battle of Megiddo resulted in still other serious changes in affairs. By it a new enemy 
-L was added to the many that had attempted the subjugation of Judah. The Egyptians 
dictated terms to the Jews — nay, dictated their politics. After the people had chosen Jehoahaz 
to reign over them as the successor of Josiah, he was able to hold the throne but three months 
— long enough, however, to demonstrate his unfitness for the position which his illustrious 
father had adorned. The Pharaoh whose power had overwhelmed the arms of Judah at 
Megiddo came up against the Jews again, captured the royal weakling, pretending to reign in 
the seat of Josiah, and carried him away, loaded with chains, to Egypt. Ezekiel in his lamen¬ 
tation for the princes of Israel seems to voice the national disappointment in the character and 
career of Jehoahaz, “the young lion” who was brought with chains unto the land of Egypt, and 
Judah was compelled to take another of her whelps and make him a young lion. Ah, how 
long they had waited for the true “ Lion of the tribe of Judah! ” But no, Judah was not 
prepared to bear that Lion. She must be purged of her idolatry; she must be chastened, 
purified and saved forever from her- false gods, and become, as never before, in all her history, 
Jehovah’s people, the worshipers of the one true God and worshipers of him only; and then 
from her loins should spring the promised power, the “ Lion of the tribe of Judah.” 

Jehoiakim, elevated to the throne by the Egyptian power, was but a vassal of the proud 
Pharaoh whose conquering arms seemed destined to achieve a universal dominion. Jehoiakim 
was forced to pay for his power. The tribute of 100 talents of silver and a talent of gold was 
more than the tottering throne was worth. This tribute was secured by burdensome tax and 
cruel oppression. The treasury of Egyjit was replenished from the lost fortunes and wages 
of the Jews. The contact of Judah with Egypt and Assyria had inspired the Jewish kings 
ambitiously to emulate the Pharaohs and such kings as Sargon, Sennacherib and Esar-haddon 
in the material aggrandizement of their capital. Perhaps no king of Judah was more com¬ 
pletely under foreign influence than Jehoiakim, the vassal of Necho. While the burdens of 
taxation to meet the tribute demanded by Egypt were crushing the people, Jehoiakim extrava¬ 
gantly set to work building a palace in which he sank the residue of the national treasure. In 
this enterprise he reduced the wages of the laborers and robbed the people of the reward of 
their toil. Against this oppression of the hireling in his wages, Jeremiah lifted up his voice in 
protest, condemnation, and warning: “ Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteous¬ 
ness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages, and giveth 
him not for his work! ” The true prophet of God has always been the friend of the people 
and the champion of their rights. This the prophet and minister of God must ever be. 



596 


.4 PUSILLANIMOUS MONARCH—EGYPT AND CHALDEA. 


The toiling millions of the earth, sons of the high and holy aristocracy of honest industry, 
coworkers with God in replenishing and subduing the earth, creating the wealth of the nations, 
and laying the material foundations of civilization, should never lack the sympathy and fellow¬ 
ship of the ministers of God. When the burden crushes, when power oppresses, when the mean 
and unjust wage humiliates and impoverishes, and when the unholy sentiment which sneers at 
toil and breeds contempt for labor gains ascendancy, then must God’s prophets lift up their 
voices and spare not. Woe to the city, the kingdom, or the republic whose aggrandizement 
has cost the people their manhood, their liberty, and their blood! Woe to a nation whose 
extreme wealth is the measure of its extreme poverty; whose toiling poor are sunken as low 
as its favored and idle rich are lifted up; whose submerging ocean depths are equal to its 
exalting mountain heights! 

In that gloomy period, never more discouraging and hopeless to the toiling masses of 
Judah, the faithful prophet wrote a book. Perhaps the king was not in the humor to say with 
Job: “ Oh, that mine adversary had written a book.” The prophet called his scribe, Baruch, 
to his aid — a fearless man with the spirit of his master. Jeremiah dictated to Baruch the 
substance of the book that contained a catalogue of the punishments which God. was to visit 
upon the nation for their sins. The book was then read in the hearing of the people as they 
gathered to the temple. It created a sensation and became the talk of the city. The princes 
heard this latest book discussed, and, curious — nervously curious — to know its import, they 
ordered Baruch to read it in the palace as he had read it in the temple. The fearless scribe 
complied with the request of the princes, and when they asked for the name of the book’s 
author they learned that it was Jeremiah. Whether from good or evil motives, the princes 
advised Baruch and his master, Jeremiah, to go into hiding, if they expected to escape the 
wrath of the king, who should immediately be informed of the book. The king was no less 
curious than his princes had been to have this sensational little book read. But when the char¬ 
acter of its contents became apparent, he cut the book into shreds with his knife and flung them 
into the fire with anger and contempt. How unwilling is a guilty conscience to hear the 
sentence pronounced on wrong doing! “What is truth?” asked Pilate, and, as Bacon said, 
would not wait for an answer. What is in the book? asked Jehoiakim, and would not wait to 
have it read. He flung the truth into the fire that wintry day, and with it went the last hope 
of Judah. God had commanded this book to be written that it might bring the nation to 
repentance and avert the impending doom. Jehoiakim tore it to shreds as the nation will be 
torn to shreds. This king, in his reign of eleven years, proved to be not only an oppressor of 
the wage-earners, of the industrial people, but also of those among the intellectual classes who 
were in sympathy with the working people and protested against the wrongs which were heaped 
upon them. He was, above all, angry with Jeremiah, the laborer’s friend and champion, and 
God’s fearless, faithful prophet. It was during this reign that Jeremiah symbolized by a bit of 
very dramatic acting the condition of subjugation to which the nation was dooming itself. He 
made wooden yokes and wore them on his neck about the streets of Jerusalem. The prophet’s 
impressive, symbolic prophecy was not long in reaching fulfillment. The conqueror was at the 
door — not Egypt, but Chaldea. The ambitious Pharaoh-Necho, who had destroyed Josiah’s 
army at Megiddo and seated Jehoiakim on the throne of Judah in the place of Jehoahaz, whom 
he took captive into Egypt, was checked in his triumphal progress and overwhelmingly defeated 
at Carchemish and despoiled of his Syrian tributaries. From that time, the fourth year of 
Jehoiakim’s reign, Egypt had no authority over Judah, which became subject to Chaldea. This 
new allegiance Jehoiakim tried to throw off, influenced by the Egyptian element and by his 
indebtedness to the Egyptian power which had seated him on his throne. Nebuchadnezzar, the 
king of Babylon, brought the Jew to terms by threatening to carry him to Babylon in chains, 
as the Pharaoh had taken his brother captive into Egypt. But no, even a worse fate is in store 





DECADENCE OF THE JUDAIC KINGDOM. 


597 


for this miserable excuse for a king. Jeremiah declares that he shall be buried with the burial 
of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gate of Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar lays successful 
siege to Jerusalem, loads Jehoiakim with chains, plunders the house of God of its sacred and 
costly vessels, and, with a goodly number of hostages, evidently the flower of Jewish aristocracy, 
prepares to depart. Changing his mind as to what disposition he should make of Jehoiakim, 
and yielding to the humiliated king’s importunities or to the influence of the Chaldean party 
manipulating Jewish politics, he releases him and restores him to the throne as a vassal king. 

Among the few captives evidently taken to Babylon at this time must have been the 
youthful Daniel, who, as though by the ordering of providence, was to act a noble part in the 
history of the Captivity, stand for Jehovah-worsliip in the midst of a splendid and powerful 
heathenism, exemplify the righteous teachings of the true Jewish religion, ameliorate the 
unhappy condition of his subjugated race, and at last work out the political problem of their 
emancipation and return to Jerusalem. 

The forces of the Chaldean were withdrawn, but no more than three years had passed 
by before Jehoiakim, influenced by his Egyptian sympathizers and his Egyptian advisers, and 
deaf to Jeremiah’s good advice — good politics, too, as well as good advice — rebelled against 
the authority to which he had sworn vassalage. Without further trifling, Nebuchadnezzar sent 
his mercenaries against Judah in the form of marauding, harassing tribes of Syrians, Moabites, 
and Chaldeans, who kept the little and despised kingdom in a state of continual unrest and 
alarm. 

At last, the king of Babylon, uniting his forces, comes up with imposing strength to crush 
the petty vassal who has broken his royal vows and defied the Chaldean authority. Jehoiakim 
is slain, and his death causes scarcely a pang of regret. It is as Jeremiah had predicted: 
“They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah, my brother! or, Ah, sister! They shall not 
lament for him, saying, Ah, Lord, or, Ah, his glory ! He shall be buried with the burial of an 
ass.” So, without the sorrow of his own people, he is hurled by his enemies into the common 
sewer, cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem. How different from the burial of Asa and the 
lamentation made for the righteous and patriotic Josiah ! How different from the mourning of 
the American people when, with universal sorrow, they drape the country from sea to sea, and 
with solemn pomp and magnificence lay to their honored rest such great and noble men as 
Washington, Lincoln, Garfield, and Grant! Nations render honor to whom honor is due. 
The people know their true benefactors and will preserve the memory of their character and 
deeds. High and low, rich and poor, vied with each other in paying honor to the memory of 
these American patriots. But, yonder, in Jerusalem, where Jehoiakim is buried with the burial 
of an ass, there can be found “ none so poor to do him reverence.” It may be very certain 
that among those oppressed, wronged laborers and mechanics there was little mourning for the 
king who had robbed them of their wages. 

When Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, comes to the throne, it takes no prophet—no, nor 
even a shrewd politician — to see that throne is not worth the taking; it is about to fall from 
its own rottenness. Yet, with the despicable spirit of his father, this young Jehoiachin begins 
his reign, which is to terminate in less than four months. Pursuing the policy of his father, 
and yielding to the advice of the Egyptian party, still strong in Jerusalem, he tries to throw 
off the Chaldean yoke. He is led to Babylon, a captive in chains, and thrown into prison by 
Nebuchadnezzar, who, with little resistance to overcome, takes Jerusalem once more, and with 
rich spoil and 10,000 prisoners, including members of the royal family and the prophet Ezekiel, 
makes his proud capital exult. 

This Chaldean power now takes a controlling hand in Jewish politics, and Nebuchadnezzar 
places Josiah’s youngest son, Mattaniah—whom he named Zedekiah—on the throne, as the 
Pharaoh-Necho did with Jehoiakim. The Chaldean treated Jehoiachin as the Egyptians 


598 


ROYAL COWARDICE —DEPORTATION OF CAPTIVES. 


treated Jehoiahaz — led him into life-long captivity. Zedekiah, owing his elevation to 
Nebuchadnezzar, is soon entangled in politics which favor the Egyptian as against the 
Chaldean supremacy. At first he resists the rebellious influences and adheres to his oath of 
allegiance, solemnly given to Nebuchadnezzar, in which he is encouraged by the ever-faithful 
Jeremiah, not only the most enlightened prophet, but also the wisest politician of the kingdom. 
Although Zedekiah finds it necessary to visit Babylon to quiet the rumors which have reached 
the court relative to his Egyptian sympathies and his hesitating policy of allegiance to Chaldea, 
he soon after yields to the powerful Egyptian influence dominant in Jerusalem, and, in violation 
of Jeremiah’s advice and warning, attempts to break the Chaldean yoke. Nebuchadnezzar 
now hastens with all his forces to settle forever the question of his authority and supremacy. 
Nothing short of the absolute submission of this rebellious vassal will meet the demand. The 
powerful monarch has a vast undertaking on hand in this expedition, for not Jerusalem only, 
but Tyre, Sidon, Lachish, and Azekali, must also be reduced. All of them have asserted, and 
are trying to achieve, their independence. The Chaldeans lay siege to Jerusalem, and for about 
eighteen months harass the city, reducing it to famine and the consequent starvation and untold 
suffering. For a short time the besiegers are drawn off* to meet the Egyptian forces coming 
to the relief of Jerusalem; then the attack is renewed with increasing vigor until the very 
enginery which the Jews have invented and taught their conquerors how to use makes a breach 
in the north walls of the city, and the final stroke is impending. Consternation seizes the 
king and his guard when the news of this disaster reaches their ears. They prepare for flight. 
No Leonidas and his Spartan band, this; no Ney and the Old Guard, which dies but never 
surrenders; no Josiah and his valiant band to meet defeat as gloriously as on Megiddo’s field! 
A coward, surrounded by cowards, skulking through the darkened streets by night and 
creeping out of the city by a breach in the wall, deserting his post, his city, his people, and 
his kingdom to save his own miserable self — what a figure to represent the last of the kings of 
Judah! Unable to escape the vigilance of his foes, the miserable Zedekiah is overtaken and 
captured, and led a prisoner, with his family and attendants, into the presence of Nebuchad¬ 
nezzar, who, in his rage and in the barbarism of his military and political power, orders 
Zedekiah’s sons to be slain before their father’s eyes. Next, with exquisite cruelty, he caused 
the eyes of the king of Judah to be put out. Jerusalem is then given up to pillage. This 
was the work, and, doubtless, the reward, of the Chaldean’s leading captains. History does 
not furnish a more horrible picture of crime and cruelty, of suffering, shame, and misery, 
than the scene which followed the capture of Jerusalem. The conquerors gave vent to every 
bestial passion, showing no pity for innocent childhood, no reverence for old age, no decent 
regard for woman’s virtue, no commiseration for human suffering. The streets ran blood; the 
house of God was the scene of robbery and murder; the homes of the people were like butchers’ 
shambles. The walls of the city were torn down; the temple was despoiled of the last sacred 
relic, of all that remained of any value that could appeal to the cupidity of the conqueror. 
Then that beautiful house, which had passed into sacred song and history, was set on fire and 
reduced to a heap, after having stood there more than four hundred years as the symbol of a 
nation’s faith and the figure of God’s promise to a race. 

To Nebuzar-adan was intrusted the final undertaking of transporting the conquered 
people to Babylon. Of these, he deported only the better classes, the educated and well to do, 
the artisans and skilled laborers, men of trades and learned professions. The very poor, 
shiftless, decrepit, and criminal classes he was politic enough to leave behind him in the land 
with the humbler and less enlightened herdsmen and farmers. One person of all that city and 
nation the conqueror treated with respect and even reverence. Jeremiah, as we have seen, was 
promised immunity. Although the pusillanimous Zedekiah left the illustrious prophet in 
prison, the night he skulked with his body-guard along the back alleys of Jerusalem and 


EMIGRATION TO EGYPT—MARTYRDOM OF JEREMIAH. 


599 


escaped from the city he had not the courage to defend, the mighty Nebuchadnezzar gave 
orders to his general-in-chief to spare the prophet and treat him with every consideration of 
respect and honor. While Zedekiah was treated with contempt and cruelty—blinded, loaded 
with chains, led a captive to Babylon and there thrust into prison to perish in dishonor — 
Jeremiah was released from the prison in which he had long been confined by the cruelty of 
Zedekiah, and was so reverently and honorably used by the conquerors that the choice was 
given him of going with the captives to Babylon or staying behind with the poor, rejected riff¬ 
raff whom the Chaldeans did not think worth transportation. The prophet remained with this 
little remnant, gathered the humble and squalid people about him and still taught them in the 
law of God. 

Gedaliah, who had been appointed governor over the land by Nebuchadnezzar, succeeded 
in rallying the Jews, who had been scattered abroad among the surrounding nations of Moab, 
Ammon, and Edom. Then the deserted vineyards were opened to the people that they might 
gather the fruits. Just when the good governor was proving himself a wise administrator of 
affairs and giving the people reason to confide in him and loyally gather about him at Mizpah, 
he was foully assassinated by Ishmael, an emissary of Baalis, the king of the Ammonites. 
Many of the Jews and Chaldeans at Mizpah were slain that day when the treachery of 
Ishmael, a scion of Jewish royalty, transgressed the sacred laws of hospitality and slew the 
unsuspecting governor at his own hoard. Gathering as many captives as possible, including 
the governor’s daughters, the assassin, with his Ammonitish soldiers, began his return march to 
the court of Baalis. Johanan, one of Gedaliah’s officers, hastily recruited a company of like 
brave men with himself, and started in pursuit. He overhauled Ishmael near the pool of 
Gibeon and rescued the captives, but the assassin made good his escape with a small body-guard 
of eight men. Johanan now gathered the homeless, hunted refugees about him and led them 
to Chimham, the place near Bethlehem whence travelers were wont to depart on their journey 
into Egypt. Here the people looked to Jeremiah for spiritual guidance, soliciting his prayers 
and intercession with God on their behalf. When the proposition was submitted to the prophet 
that this little remnant of Judah go into Egypt, ostensibly to escape further molestations of the 
Chaldeans, Jeremiah advised the people to remain in the land of their fathers, and warned 
them against plague, famine, and war awaiting them if they disobeyed God. In an oration of 
great power and feeling Jeremiah cried: “The Lord hath said concerning you, O ye remnant of 
Judah ; Go ye not into Egypt: know certainly that I have admonished you this day.” Great 
as their reverence for the prophet must have been, the people seemed inclined to listen to young 
men of war, rather than to the old man of counsel. In their haste and enthusiasm the younger 
nten, Azariali and Johanan in particular, charged the old prophet with falsehood in claiming 
God would not have them go into Egypt. The young men prevailed; “ So they came into the 
land of Egypt, .... even to Tahpanhes.” Here the faithful prophet Jeremiah is said 
to have suffered martyrdom. The people whose cause he had espoused, to whose welfare he had 
devoted his life and consecrated his prophetic gifts, at last cruelly stoned him to death. 

To-day, after a lapse of nearly 2,500 years, the name of Jeremiah and a prophecy which 
he made are exciting most interesting discussions among advanced archaeologists. This last 
refuge of the remnant of Judah — Tahpanhes — has become a field of archaeological explora¬ 
tion and study, and the discoveries there made harmonize with the remarkable, and for ages 
the obscure, language of Jeremiah. “Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah in 
Tahpanhes, saying, Take great stones in thine hand, and hide them in the clay in the brick¬ 
kiln, which is at the entry of Pharaoh’s house in Tahpanhes, in the sight of the men of Judah; 
and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and 
take Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these 
stones that I have hid ; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.” This Pharaoh’s 


000 SHAME AND GRIEF OF JUDAH. . 

home is now known to archaeology; the very “brickwork,” 1 or “pavement,” mentioned by 
Jeremiah has been brought to light by the aid of pick and shovel. Great stones have been 
found buried under this brick pavement, those, possibly, which Jeremiah had buried there in 
obedience to the word of the Lord. It was not many years after Jeremiah’s prophecy that 
Nebuchadnezzar swept through this very region to the overthrow of Amasis, the usurper of the 
Egyptian throne. Not far from this spot have been found terra-cotta cylinders, on which are 
inscribed fragments of the annals of Nebuchadnezzar, in proof of his presence in this locality, 
where, on his expedition of conquest and subjugation, he must have “ set liis throne,” and 
“ spread his royal pavilion,” and made the remnant of Judah which had fled hither for safety 
feel the cruelty of his power, the final crushing blow of Babylonian conquest. 

Thus did that people vanish from the land to which God had led them, years before; like 
chaff before the whirlwind they disappeared, scattered by the strong, swift power of the con¬ 
querors whom their faithful prophets recognized as the servants of God. The land of corn and 
wine that flowed with milk and honey is now without a vine-dresser, a husbandman, or a herds¬ 
man to sow the fields, gather the fruits, and tend the neglected flocks. Even the poor, despised 
remnant, spurned by Nebuchadnezzar, rallied about the standard of Johanan and followed him 
into Egypt there, in the land where their ancient ancestors were slaves, to perish of famine, 
pestilence, and war. As the flower of Judah’s people, her princes, scholars, artists, merchants, 
skilled mechanics, and warriors journeyed eastward and at last entered Babylon a conquered 
and a captive race, the very splendor and magnificence of the Chaldean capital must have 
brought to memory by striking contrast the desolation and ruin of Jerusalem, once beautiful 
for situation and the joy of the whole earth. By like powerful contrast the patriotism, intelli¬ 
gence and religious devotion of the all-powerful Nebuchadnezzar must have reminded them of 
the disloyalty and crimes of those kings who had brought David’s throne into contempt, led 
the people into idolatry, and sowed to the wind, inevitably to reap the whirlwind of national 
disgrace and ruin. In that far land and wondrous city the lamentation of Jeremiah may have 
reached the captive people, and there, among the marble temples and sculptured palaces of the 
city which Nebuchadnezzar’s wealth and genius had made the most magnificent in the world, 
the people whose ancestors had known a Solomon’s glory and boasted of a David’s power, now, 
humiliated and broken-hearted, may have taken up the sad refrain : 

‘ 1 How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people ! 

How is she become as a widow ! 

She that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, 

How is she become tributary ! 

She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks : 

Among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her : 

All her friends have dealt treacherously with her, 

They are become her enemies. 

Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude : 

She dwelletb among the heathen, she findeth no rest : 

All her persecutors overtook her within the straits.” 


1 See Jeremiah xliii, 9,10 (Revised Version). 

















































